Clinton Conference Call On FL/MI

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I will live blog the Clinton campaign conference call on the Florida/Michigan controversy. Expected to speak are Howard Wolfson and Harold Ickes. Given Ickes' role in stripping the delegates, we can expect very pointed questions to be directed at him. Harold is a sharp as hell bulldog. Should be fun to see how he responds.

The live blogging will be below the fold.

Wolfson notes that Clinton was in Florida yesterday.

Ickes talks about the challenges that were filed on behalf on Michigan and Florida and will be heard on May 31. the candidates have been allowed to intervene and the Clinton camp WILL file an intervening position paper. Discussions have taken place with the RBC about the situation. Ickes will not discuss what was said.

The Clinton position remains the same, the delegations of Florida and Michigan must reflect the voting.

Ickes discusses the need to have Florida in the general election and achieving 270 electoral votes. He also stresses the need that the delegates be seated in time to effect the nomination process.

Wolfson discusses the Q polling in FL, OH and PA and the fact that Clinton wins handily against McCain in all 3 and that Obama loses to McCain in Ohio and Florida.

Wolfson stresses "the Map." You know the drill.

questions - Ickes asked by David Corn about his role in stripping the delegates, is he a flip flopper. [Aside, Corn is right. Ickes is a flip flopper. He was part of the problem. He was part of the screwup.] Ickes argues that the ruling THEN was about protecting the early window but in essence, THAT WAS THEN THIS IS NOW. [Frankly, Ickes answer is utter BS. He should just say he screwed up and was wrong.]

Ickes screws up and Corn pounces - Ickes said there was "no full fledged primary" and Corn logically asks if there was no full fledged primary then why should it count. Ickes response is weak.

Andrea Mitchell asks about compromise on Florida and Michigan, what would be acceptable? Ickes dodges and sticks to the original position. He does make an important point that delegations have been selected.

Mitchell asks about whether Clinton will go to the convention if Michigan and Florida is not settled before. Wolfson says we expect it will be settled. 2210 is the number, and if Obama reaches it, Clinton will support him.

Good question from Slate, how is it that Michigan was a fair election because Obama urged his supporters to vote uncommitted but the uncommitted voters do not go to Obama on the popular vote metric? Wolfson dodges on the question. As you folks know, I think the uncommitted should be counted towards Obama.

Q from USA Today - what is your reaction to Obama beginning VP selection process. no reaction.

Detroit News - Where was Clinton defending Michigan last fall? Fair question. Wolfson says - "there was every expectation that turnout would be low,but it was record turnout." [Weak answer.] "You can argue about people's positions, but at the end of the day it is about the voters." THERE's the answer. This is about the voters, not about anyone else. Stick with that one Howard.

Wolfson says AXELROD says status quo not acceptable.

Miami Herald - What does intervention mean? Florida is asking for half of the delegates. Ickes says that is not right. That Florida is seeking full seating and offers as an ALTERNATIVE REMEDY, the half seating plan. Michigan's plan is also not agreed to by Clinton camp at all.

LATimes- Does this matter? How does she win even if she gets the delegates? Wolfson says they will continue to make their case to the superdelegates that Clinton is the better candidate and will be the better President. cue the drill.

Ickes stresses yet again that since Obama has accepted that FL/MI have to be resolved, 2026 is no longer operative.

Dickerson of Slate - are you arguing that if Florida and Michigan are not seated is Obama's nomination illegitimate. Wolfson says he would never use that word. This is not about tainting the nomination process.

Also have there been discussion of Clinton and Obama discussions. A flat denial of Al Giordano's reporting.

Anne Kornblut with a good question - what of those committee members who are committed to a candidate, what will they do? Ickes says no one is committed to anything.

Uncommitteds in Michigan? Will you allow them go to Obama? Wolfson they probably will go to Obama.

My question was basically, isn't it also in Senator Obama's interest to have Florida and Michigan seated to improve his chances to win in November.

Wolfson seemed to agree. Ickes said it ill behooves a democratic nominee to ignore any state but especially states like florida and Michigan.

And with that the call ends.

< More On Why Obama Needs To Fight To Seat Florida | Electability VA Style >

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.

Clinton Conference Call On FL/MI | 187 comments (187 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm more interested in the (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:19 AM EST

Obama conference call, if there is going to be one.
I want his campaign pinned down on the precise reasons they took his name off the ballot in MI.
I'd also like to know how they can justify getting ANY delegates from FL, given the month of TV advertising that took place there.

I personally (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:15 AM EST

would like to take Obama at his word and give him no delegates from either state.

He said they would not count, after all.

/snark


As did Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST

Good solution.


Judgement (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:54 AM EST

She left her name in. He did not. He should live with his judgement.


: Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by sas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:05 AM EST

the SUPERIOR judgement he has
Wright
Rezko
Ayers
disenfranchisement

Nope. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:22 AM EST

...Obama spokesman Bill Burton offered a reminder that the primaries in Michigan and Florida will "have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest" because the states won't have any delegates at the national convention.
Not so fast, says the Clinton campaign. In a memo just circulated in response, the Clinton campaign denies the charge that it's planning to campaign in Florida; says the Obama campaign is pushing the Michigan-doesn't-matter line only because its efforts to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" isn't working; and seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all.
"While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

Facts are pesky things.


Indeed they are (none / 0) (#138)
by mattt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:08:37 PM EST

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said it would be foolish to take her name off Michigan's primary ballot and sacrifice her chances against the Republican nominee..."It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday...

Did you even read the article you are linking to? (none / 0) (#158)
by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST

She explicitly says the votes are not going to count but that she personally believes it is a huge mistake to ignore MI come November. Which is why she refused to remove her name.

She isn't saying she agrees with the decision, she is simply stating the facts by reiterating what the DNC position is and that it will be a big problem for the Dems in the GE.

This just proves she really did have her eye on the big picture. You know - beating McCain.


Yes, I read it (none / 0) (#165)
by mattt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:28:09 PM EST

Her stated reason for staying in had nothing to do with letting Dem voters be heard in the context of the primary, which is what she would now like people to believe.

At very best, she sent mixed messages to MI voters, leading many to believe their vote wouldn't count and to their crossing over to vote in the GOP primary. Which means that a revote in MI would disenfranchise voters who took the rules seriously.

I found the audio linked elsewhere in the thread interesting too. Clinton repeatedly said each candidate faced a choice about whether to "participate" in MI. This was after she'd signed the the 4-state pledge, vowing not to "campaign or participate."

But as Ickes might say, 'that was then, this is now.'


: This is not a mixed message. (none / 0) (#169)
by wurman on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST

"If you look at the some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow. And it wasn't, in my view, meaningful, but I'm not going to say there's an absolute, total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we're not careful about it."
What is unclear about "an absolute, total ignoring of the people"?
Your post is just a contradiction of the AP article. Up is down, ayeh?

The presumption that the elections (none / 0) (#190)
by Iris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:21:30 AM EST

which took place in Florida and especially Michigan was premised on a revote being held. Obama objected to a revote on a number of grounds. Since there was no revote, the original election stands. Hillary did the smart thing, recognizing that the DNC really does not have the right to invalidate an election that Obama chose not to participate in. Now he wants all the uncommitted votes, any number of which could have been for other Democratic candidates. Polling estimates would really be the only fair way to determine what kind of support he had in Michigan at the time, if one wanted to estimate how many delegates he should get. Any other uncommitteds should go to the convention as exactly that, without commitments.


hardball (none / 0) (#142)
by Robert Oak on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST

I think that point should be promoted simply to push them back from this premature claim on the nomination as well as to counter their attempts to repress two entire states in order to get the nomination.

In the end I think they should simply seat Florida and MI and give all of the uncommitted votes of MI to Obama.


Was it a month of advertising? (none / 0) (#4)
by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST

I was under the impression that it was a relatively small national buy on some Cable stations. Do you have a source for how long it ran for?


I have discussed it in comments (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:46:24 AM EST

here and elsewhere with other people.
What I have been told is that the ads ran statewide, and for several weeks---the fact they ran in the entire state has been confirmed by many people. I do not believe it was one small buy.


: Not several weeks (none / 0) (#182)
by bison on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:59:56 PM EST

Somewhere in between the NH and SC primary. I think, the ads were bundle in a cable package and ran in the northern part of the state-- the campaign sought permission before the ads aired.

Ha. No national buy ever is "small." (5.00 / 5) (#102)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST

But bless your heart, try again. And do tell us where Obama modified the pledge he signed to say, y'know, that "size matters" -- straight outa the frat boy playbook, that one! :-)


: small national buy (none / 0) (#143)
by Ovah on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:28:45 PM EST

can refer to a cable only buy, not national network, that only runs for a week and a determined number of times. Running mostly on CNN and MSNBC for 8 days prior to the Florida primary but designed to reach the 22 state Super Tuesday races would not be considered a large buy in Florida.

But (none / 0) (#10)
by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:16 AM EST

The DNC decision did not include anything saying the candidates couldn't campaign. I know it was in the original rules along with the 50% delegate reduction, but that isn't what they went with. Instead they did the 100% reduction without saying they couldn't campaign.


Huh? They could not campaign--- (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:59 AM EST

that was very firm.


Pledge (none / 0) (#15)
by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:52:08 AM EST

That was the pledge. The pledge was from the 4 states not from the DNC. The pledge also had no consequences if violated other than that the voters of those early states might vote against you.


Incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EST

The rules of the DNC say, very explicitly, that if a state holds its primary too early, any candidate who campaigns there can't get any delegates from the state. The pledge just served to reinforce this.


That's it, no delegates from NH or IA! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:09:28 AM EST

: uhhhhhh SC? :) (5.00 / 0) (#52)
by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:22:46 AM EST

: Or SC and NV! (5.00 / 0) (#98)
by alexei on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:59 AM EST

Their rule, but not their ruling. (none / 0) (#67)
by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:28:29 AM EST

The rules also very clearly state that there will be a 50% reduction. The RBC is allowed to alter the punishment. So when they met they decided the punishment after finding Florida out of compliance. They voted on 100% reduction. Its been a little while since I watched the video, but I don't remember them saying anything about not campaigning.

Which is why, when Obama may or may not have violated the no campaigning rule (depending on your point of view), no one asked the DNC for clarification. Or when Kucinich or Gravel campaigned in Florida, the DNC didn't object. Because it wasn't their ruling. Never once has the DNC come out and said the candidates can't campaign.

I remember last spring, candidates were saying that you can't keep candidates from campaigning. It goes against their nature. Which is why I assumed they left that part out of the ruling.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:37:08 AM EST

The rules remain the rules unless an explicit waiver is granted.

There's a certain element of "chicken" built into the process, where a candidate can campaign in a state like FL and essentially dare the DNC to disenfranchise voters by taking away the delegates. That's why the early states wanted an additional commitment in the form of a signed pledge.

But still, any campaign would be completely within their rights to file a complaint with the DNC and argue that their opponent should receive no delegates because they campaigned in violation of the rules. The rules were not rendered inoperative by the ruling.


Think of them as sentencing guidlines (none / 0) (#137)
by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:07:55 PM EST

You don't get the sentence until they proclaim the sentence. And even if the sentencing guidelines state you will get a, b and c unless they state that in the actual sentencing it doesn't apply.

For approval for the candidates to come to the Florida state Dem convention (denied), the FDP went to the pledge writers NOT the DNC. And when the Obama campaign was going to run that national ad, they went to the writers of the pledge not the DNC for approval. No one talked about not campaigning unless they talked about the pledge.

But I'm open to your point of view. Just show me one DNC official declaring candidates are not allowed to campaign in Florida even without the pledge. I've just never seen it.


It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:21:04 PM EST

that Dean's letter to the candidates pretty much called for the Delegate Selection Rules to be upheld, which would include the rule about what happens if you campaign.

I think you're right that it was never explicitly spelled out that this rule would be enforced. And I think the reason is clear: the decision whether to actually penalize a candidate for campaigning can only be made after the fact, and if Dean says "campaign, and you won't get any delegates," then he loses all credibility if the DNC ultimately decides not to enforce the penalty. So the smarter course for him is to urge "voluntary" compliance with the rules to prevent it from becoming an issue.


: You (none / 0) (#183)
by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:00:38 PM EST

are probably right. I did in another thread just post an interview with Obama a local reporter did where Obama is confronted with the fact that the DNC didn't tell him not campaign. Just in case, you want to read his reasoning on it.

Ahem. Parliamentary rules (5.00 / 2) (#112)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:46:04 AM EST

are so handy to know. The 100% stripping of the delegates was an amendment to the original rule, and an amendment only to that portion of the rule; the motion was not to entirely replace, i.e., affect the rest, of the rule.

Pledge was not with DNC (none / 0) (#157)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:57:58 PM EST

and thus is not relevant to DNC rules.

It is relevant to the thread about Obama breaking this pledge that he signed and thus useful to have here for the inevitable trolls about that.


Can we all agree (none / 0) (#164)
by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:27:11 PM EST

Thank you for the documentation. I think at this point, however, that the two camps are so divided and nerves so raw that no one is willing to listen to details. But perhaps we can get everyone to get behind the argument that the bottom line is to get into the Fall campaign with the best chance to win the White House, but those chances will be seriously damaged if the Florida and Michigan delegations are not seated.

Another thing that occurred to me is that instead of enforcing party discipline by punishing only some states that violated the DNC primary date rules, we are playing into the hands of the Republicans in the FL legislature who are responsible for moving up the FL primary date. I.e., note to Republicans in state legislatures: Get behind legislation that promotes in-fighting among Democrats, and laugh about your success all the way to the White House. We are playing into Republican hands, not promoting our own candidates or party goals.


The transparent campaign (none / 0) (#14)
by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:51:02 AM EST

never holds a public position.


Can you ask them (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST

if Clinton will argue her own case on 31st May?

Also, will it be televised? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:06 AM EST

I agree that it would be good for her (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM EST

to be there. But she should continue to cast it as she has; it's not "her case," it's the people's case.


: Its OUR case! Every state was disenfranchised by (5.00 / 4) (#83)
by dotcommodity on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:34:39 AM EST

disenfranchising FL and MI. It gave Obama a 2 million vote handicap.
The DNC was so determined from the getgo to disregard our preference.
Send an old pair of your shoes to the Walk a Mile In Our Shoes protest to the DNC to get there before their meeting on the 31st:

Fun? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by Y Knot on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:50:27 AM EST

I don't really see this as fun. More horrifying that our hope of winning the Presidency dwindles day by day as both side harden their positions, and the hope of reconciliation seems more and more remote.

Maybe I'm naive... maybe I missed something. But Ickes DID have a role in stripping these delegate. And I've heard Senator Clinton herself say that the reason she didn't take her name off the ballot in Michigan was because it was clear the election there wouldn't count.

Is that taken out of context? Because it certainly does SEEM like she's changing her position based on political expediency.

I've always been a staunch admirer of hers, but this latest tactic -- saying that this is on the same level as women's suffrage, or a scam like 2000 -- seems disingenuous to me. Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

(And for the record, I favor counting the votes in Florida as they stand since both of them were on the ballot, but doing a revote in Michigan, so that the voters can actually have a choice.)

Clinton did not say (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:09 AM EST

the votes would not count.

That's what you're missing.


Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:13 AM EST

Plus I thing that Ickes' response is perfectly legitimate. Many people who said in the beginning that Fl and MI would not count have changed their tune including Howard Dean. So there are a lot of flip-floppers if that is what people want to call people who have rightly changed their mind by recognizing the voters of both states.

As for David Corn - his questioning sounds like that of an Obama supporter.


That's because he is one. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:24:43 AM EST

: AH! (none / 0) (#61)
by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:15 AM EST

Big surprise.

I thought you had to be running for something (5.00 / 3) (#66)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:28:17 AM EST

and in the trenches to be labeled a flip flopper. I thought if you were just a civilian it was called changing your mind. Now I have to deal with the fact that I have flip flopped about vacationing at the beach and whether eating red meat was healthy or not, and I've even flip flopped about wearing flip flops since I've moved to the South.


: LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:29:58 AM EST

Actually: Josh Marshall (5.00 / 0) (#54)
by ksh on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM EST

Though he acknowledges the media has not always been fair to Clinton, he let's loose on her today in Toxic:

I know many ... believe there is a deep moral and political issue at stake in the need to seat these delegations. I don't see it the same way. But I'm not here to say they're wrong and I'm right. It's a subjective question and I respect that many people think this. What I'm quite confident about is that Sen. Clinton and her top advisors don't see it that way.
Why do I think that? For a number of reasons. One of her most senior advisors, Harold Ickes, was on the DNC committee that voted to sanction Florida and Michigan by not including their delegates. Her campaign completely signed off on sanctions after that. And there are actually numerous quotes from the Senator herself saying those primaries didn't and wouldn't count. Michigan and Florida were sanctioned because they ignored the rules the DNC had set down for running this year's nomination process.
The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think this was a problem at all -- until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign.

LOL! (5.00 / 4) (#59)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:25:22 AM EST

That unimpeachable source, TPM!


He has a Ph.D. from Princeton (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM EST

and he thinks that's an argument?


No (none / 0) (#131)
by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:03:06 PM EST

He has a Ph.D. in American History from Brown University.

Just for the sake of accuracy ;-)


: Thanks (none / 0) (#139)
by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST

I think my point stands, though.

Was Ickles a part of (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by americanincanada on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:29:26 AM EST

the Clinton campaign at the time he voted on the sanctions?


: I don't have a link, but believe (none / 0) (#101)
by ksh on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:43:31 AM EST

he signed onto the campaign in April 2007 and the rules committee vote was in August 2007....but like I said, I'd have to find a link. I know he's been a strong Clinton adviser and, at various time, staff for over 15 years.

A deep moral issue is (5.00 / 2) (#84)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST

subjective? Ah, a situational ethicist. The founders of Princeton are turning over in their graves.


Hmmm... I posted a link... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Y Knot on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:53 AM EST

... the first time. Apparently, it didn't make it for some reason. Sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

She says pretty clearly that she felt the election wouldn't count.

And please, I'm not arguing that Obama is right. I think he's wrong in Florida, and I don't even know his position on Michigan. My question is about Clinton and I figured, since this is one of the most friendly sites to her, I'd have the best chance at getting a fair answer here.

I agree that the voters should be heard. I think they were, in Florida, and they weren't in Michigan. Hence, I think the one should count, and the other should be redone properly.


I'm probably in the minority here (5.00 / 0) (#94)
by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:40:07 AM EST

but I pretty much agree with you. There just isn't a clear, fair way to deal with the problem at this point, and I think Clinton looks kind of bad pushing for seating the delegates as is. That said, I really thought there should have been re-votes to avoid all this and to be fair to the voters, and Obama blocked them so I'm having trouble being sympathetic to his arguments now.

Summary: I think Clinton's arguments are weak, but I also think Obama played Fl and MI like banjos to his benefit, so I guess anything goes now.


It's a mess now... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM EST

but it wouldn't have been if Obama had agreed to re-votes.

What is she supposed to do now? She's been wanting to get those votes and delegates counted from the get-go. Obama and the DNC have blocked her at every step.


: You're right, there. (5.00 / 2) (#146)
by Y Knot on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST

This whole thing should've been resolved months ago. I'm afraid there's no good answer now. Guess we'll have to wait and see what they decide on the 31st.
Thanks everyone.

Actually, she explicitly said (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by riddlerandy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST

that it was clear that the MI vote was not going to count for anything.


Nope. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:24:09 AM EST

I'll post it again from my link if you want. This is an official statement by her campaign from January 15, 2008, not some captured slip of the tongue that you got from the Daily Obama.

In addition to that accusation, Obama spokesman Bill Burton offered a reminder that the primaries in Michigan and Florida will "have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest" because the states won't have any delegates at the national convention.
Not so fast, says the Clinton campaign. In a memo just circulated in response, the Clinton campaign denies the charge that it's planning to campaign in Florida; says the Obama campaign is pushing the Michigan-doesn't-matter line only because its efforts to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" isn't working; and seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all.
"While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

It was hardly a slip of the tongue (3.00 / 2) (#73)
by riddlerandy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:30:04 AM EST

it was a clear and unambiguous statement.


Give it up. (5.00 / 3) (#80)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:33:20 AM EST

Obama was the one who circulated an official memo from his campaign that said the states didn't count.

Clinton's official response was that they did.

People misspeak during campaigns. We don't need to go through all of Obama's, now do we?


Here's Sen. Clinton NPR audio 3/13/08 (none / 0) (#136)
by wurman on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:07:17 PM EST

From Democratic Underground link to YouTube

It's really, really clear. You know . . . clear.


: can we go back 2 years (5.00 / 2) (#149)
by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM EST

to Obama saying he would not run, because as a first term senator, he did not have the experience? Because that I think we can all agree on.

Pivot to the GE (5.00 / 3) (#60)
by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:06 AM EST

Pivot already, pivot! .... Why do Obama supporters insist on clinging to the primary? Move on, get over it, start fighting your GE battle. How much have you donated to his GE? His GE strategy is GOTV, what state are you going to work in? Move on already. It's just getting sad. You need never mention Clinton again. Figure out the best strategy to win votes in each state and quit sniping about Clinton.


Rallying the entire Democratic party (none / 0) (#147)
by mattt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:34:15 PM EST

behind the likely nominee is a big part of the GE battle.

I read often about how Obama and his backers don't care about Hillary's supporters, or about FL/MI voters, or about women voters. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact that Hillary connects more effectively, and has stronger support among women voters, does not mean that Barack doesn't care about women or issues of special interest.

The fact that Hillary connects more effectively with Appalachia Democrats, does not mean that Obama is an elitist who doesn't care about working class white voters, or that if Hillary were not an option he couldn't carry many of these voters vs. McCain.

The fact that Obama is playing to win, according to the rules, in FL and MI - just like Hillary has played to win by downplaying the importance of caucus states in her arguments to the superdels - doesn't mean he doesn't care about the people of those states or couldn't carry them in the Fall. In fact he's leading in MI polls right now.

The core Dem constituencies represented by women, working class voters and Hillary supporters are vital to Obama's chances in November. That's why Hillary's increasingly divisive rhetoric, as explained more clearly than I could by Marshall at TPM, is so destructive. She's entitled to make her case, but people don't have to buy into it.


: IACF!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#148)
by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:35:44 PM EST

Context. Context. Context. (5.00 / 2) (#127)
by wurman on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST

The YouTube where she says "this election they're having is not going to count for anything" is from October 2007 with Anderson Cooper "funning" with Roland Martin. In the background, a super of text, with a photo of Sen. Clinton, supports an out-of-context, chopped up audio from NPR. Her audio is stating what had been done by the DNC, not what she desired or advocated. All along since the October comment, the Clinton campaign attempted many times to set up a re-vote & they still think MI could have one August 5, 2008.

Her position since then has been AGAINST a variety of foolish attempts to modify, extrapolate & use the results which she had already described as "not going to count for anything." Get it? Can you follow?

The argument goes like this: if you're now going to count what you told me you would not count, then I win. You don't get to say that it counts & then come up with a new or different method that favors my opponent. If you don't like that, then let's have a re-count.

See, it's not all that difficult.

Also, as noted right above, Sen. Clinton has steadily insisted that the vote should count.


And the quote that is supplied upthread (none / 0) (#167)
by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:38:19 PM EST

completely takes what she says out of context.

She never said she thought they didn't count, she is simply stating the position of the DNC. And then proceeds to explain why she thinks it's a terrible idea. But, you NEVER hear that part of the quote.

It is willful twisting of what she said to create a false statment.


: Great, that's what I was asking for (none / 0) (#177)
by Y Knot on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:52:49 PM EST

Do you have a link to anything showing this? I'd love to see or hear for myself the full context.

please (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by sas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST

changing position because of political expediency....we dare not go there with Obama....

I'll tell you what you are missing....voter disenfranchisement....how can Obama , with a straight face, much less a campaign, argue for disenfranchisement? What a friggin disgusting position.

Sorry, Clinton wins oc=verwhelmingly on this one.

Oh yeah, Obama will allow them to be counted as long as they don't change the outcome.....WTF?
The votes count as long as they don't count? Again, WTF?


Check (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by sas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:50:30 AM EST

out these Quinnipiac polls....

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml

Ickes gets a bad rap (5.00 / 6) (#24)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:34 AM EST

Unless we think Ickes was out to screw the Clinton campaign, it's apparent that he made what he thought was the right decision from the institutional perspective of the DNC. And the reality is, the only scenario under which that decision could truly prove disastrous is if the nomination were so tight that it went down to the wire.

In hindsight, we know that's what happened, but mathematically this wasn't a likely outcome at all. The likely scenario was that this year would be like every other year - we go through the first few primaries, a consensus nominee emerges, and all the other primaries just serve to ratify. In that case, MI and FL would obviously have their delegations restored, and the purpose of the rules would have been upheld in that MI and FL would have been prevented from giving themselves outsized influence over the primary process.

Now that we're in the actual situation we're in, however unlikely it may have been, we have no choice but to find the solution that's in the best interests of the Democratic Party. I think everyone, Ickes included, has a legitimate basis to change their mind given the unforeseen circumstances we find ourselves in.

Exactly. (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:59:36 AM EST

Plus, Clinton's position was different from Ickes'. She was fully confident that the votes and the delegates would be counted.


I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:03:23 AM EST

Telling me I don't get a vote is wrong no matter whether or not my vote would have made a difference. I'm used to not having a say because a decision has already been made prior to my primary but that is completely different than telling me I have no say because rules were violated by others.

Even prior to the first primary, there was an outcry in Florida over not getting a vote. And yes perhaps that outcry would not have spread as much had this primary season ended quickly. But that doesn't make what the RBC did right. It just makes it more hidden.

You never disenfranchise the voters. Ever. Its just that simple.


No, they thought it was the right (5.00 / 0) (#42)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:13:41 AM EST

decision for Hillary at the time. There were 12 Clinton reps on the credentials committee. All 12 voted to strip both Florida and Michigan of all their delegates. Hillary thought she'd wrap this up on Super Tuesday, in what was akin to a national primary, and didn't want Florida or Michigan interfering with her plans. Ickes' position never ws about the good of the DNC.


Any documentation (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:21:35 AM EST

to back up your statements or is this just your opinion?


: Look here (none / 0) (#82)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:34:09 AM EST

http://tinyurl.com/6jnwsc

That's idiotic (5.00 / 3) (#68)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM EST

FL is obviously one of Clinton's best states in terms of demographics. MI was always assumed to be a Clinton win, which is why Obama wanted to get off the ballot. Why would Clinton's supporters think that it would help her to render two sure wins inoperative?

Your theory is also shown to be silly by the fact that Obama supporters were hardly up in arms trying to get the early MI and FL primaries to count. Yet if counting those primaries somehow would have been to Clinton's disadvantage, it would have equally been to Obama's advantage.

The idea that Hillary's supporters on the committee voted to disenfranchise two of her best states in order to do her a favor is truly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Yes, a 100% certain big win for Hillary in Florida before Super Tuesday really would have screwed up her plans! Bahahahaha.


Why did all 12 members of the Rules (1.00 / 1) (#85)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST

Committee vote to strip FL and MI if Clinton's campaign didn't want it?

http://tinyurl.com/6jnwsc


I meant 12 Clinton supporter members (none / 0) (#87)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:36:08 AM EST

Heh (5.00 / 3) (#95)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:40:20 AM EST

I see you're immune to logic so I won't bother. You want to believe that they disenfranchised two of Clinton's best states in order to help Clinton, be my guest. I note you can't offer any explanation of why Obama's supporters on the committee wanted to do Clinton this favor.

I honestly cannot believe anyone would argue that the ruling concerning MI and FL was intended to do Clinton a favor. Truly one of the dumbest things ever written on this site, if not the entire Internet.


Answer this question, logic impaired guy (1.00 / 1) (#110)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:45:59 AM EST

Why did all 12 Clinton supporting members of the Rules committee vote to strip all delegates from FL and MI?

The only one of 30 members who voted against this was an Obama supporter.

Are you honestly trying to argue that the 12 Clinton supporters, including Harold Ickes, would all have voted against the Clinton campaign's interests? LOLOLOLOL!


Wow (5.00 / 3) (#119)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:51:47 AM EST

Thick as a brick.


Name calling and evasion (none / 0) (#133)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM EST

but no answer.

Tsk tsk. It won't do.

Does my question stump you so badly that you have to resort to childish games?


See wurman's post above re: context (5.00 / 1) (#144)
by gmo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:30:36 PM EST

I'm not sure I understand your point here, particularly in light of the context of what's occurred since that vote, and in light of the fact that this is, after all, about politics, where context is everything.

Are you saying that at the end of the day the votes of 12 Clinton surrogates on the delegate committee outweigh the importance of the votes of 2+ million voters in MI & FL?


No. I'm saying (1.00 / 1) (#162)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST

Clinton was instrumental then, when her surrogates, all 12, voted in favor of stripping all delegates from FL and MI.
Clinton is instrumental, now, when she changes course and cloaks herself as a champion of democracy.
It's not Obama's fault that FL and MI were disenfranchised. Stop blaming him.

OK - duly noted. (none / 0) (#163)
by gmo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:19:08 PM EST

Clinton and Obama acted as politicians in their own self-interest. No argument from me; no blame to either.

Now let's stop chasing down this rabbit hole of rules and political expedience and just do what is right for the voters, which is to have their voices heard.


The voters in MI and FL are not the only group (none / 0) (#166)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST

with interests in the outcome here.

Voters and supporters who associated with Obama, under the rules that existed at the time the FL and MI primaries were held, gave time and money to their candidate with the understanding and belief that their candidate would be competing under the rules as they then existed.

Changing the rules, now, in such a way that would give either candidate an advantage from the current status quo would be an equally horrible miscarriage of justice.

If FL and MI are to be seated, they must be seated in a way that is neutral, that gives neither candidate an advantage.


: So you're saying... (none / 0) (#180)
by gmo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:04:13 PM EST

...their support of Obama was contingent upon the disenfranchisement of two states? That's a scary thought.

any self-help books you'd recommend? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by jackyt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:36:13 AM EST

For the longest time, I've wanted to be able to read minds. You seem to have mastered the skill. Was this something you were born with? Or can anyone learn your techniques?


: Hillary thought it would be over Feb 5 (1.00 / 2) (#99)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:42:10 AM EST

I'm going to start on January 3rd with the caucuses in Iowa and go all the way until February 5th, because at the end of the campaign what you need are enough delegates to actually get you the nomination. And I believe that I will get the nomination and that I will be the next president.
She assumed she'd win overwhelmingly on Feb 5 and her victories would knock everybody else out of the race. She didn't want MI or FL mucking up her narrative. Obviously at the time she didn't believe she needed them, or else her 12 supporters on the Rules Committee wouldn't have voted to strip all delegates from both states.

That argument makes no sense (5.00 / 2) (#91)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:37:13 AM EST

politically, mathematically, chronologically, etc. Florida and Michigan favored her and were before Super Tuesday.

Think it through. Think, then type.


Answer this question: (1.00 / 1) (#104)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:43:36 AM EST

How do you explain that all 12 Clinton supporter members of the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip MI and FL of all their delegates? The only member who voted against this was an Obama supporter.


Again, I've watched the video (5.00 / 3) (#121)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:52:41 AM EST

of the meeting, and your statement is incorrect. Sigh. Have you viewed the meeting for yourself?


How is my statement incorrect? (none / 0) (#135)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:06:13 PM EST

Where is the video of the meeting?


C-Span archives (none / 0) (#159)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:03:59 PM EST

and that sure answers my question as to whether you watched it and know what the heck happened.


Got a link? (none / 0) (#160)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM EST

Check archives (none / 0) (#171)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST

here, where we linked it and watched it a while ago -- too long ago for me to take the time. Or go to the C-Span archives and use search. Do the work yourself; I'm having a busy day.


Thanks, but no thanks (1.00 / 1) (#174)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:12:59 PM EST

If you want to assert something exists and proves your point, it's customary to carry the burden to show it. That's how it's normally done, anyway.


Here is the link (none / 0) (#176)
by boredmpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:51:36 PM EST

You've been here long enough to know about this topic and to know the standards expected at this site and not chatter/attack other regulars. You are repeating the same point in multiple places and can't be bothered to learn the facts.


: Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#178)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:00:50 PM EST

Your criticism is silly, though. Yes, I know about this topic. I hadn't seen the video the OP mentioned. I am not attacking anybody. I am rude only to those who display rudeness to me first. I am not repeating the same point in multiple places. I am responding to posts that ask me questions.

: So, it's not streaming video? (none / 0) (#179)
by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:03:08 PM EST

It's not available as streaming video anywhere on the internets?

check (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by sas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:51 AM EST

these polls out....

Odd. The point of the protracted (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST

contest was to find out who was the stronger candidate. Looking at those polls that is clearly Clinton. The PA numbers are astounding, given she's supposed to be dead in the water.


: I am starting to think (none / 0) (#86)
by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST

that the primary process is flawed...(OK, I already thought that, but now it's flaws are in technicolor).
Some smart modeler needs to come up with a primary scenario that will help get a Dem in the WH. I don't care if it's not fair to Iowa, I want a winner!!! Losing the WH because early states are not reflective of electability is not fair to the rest of the Dems.

Some Cherry Picking (none / 0) (#153)
by mattt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:45:37 PM EST

going on there. Go to RCP, click Polls at the top and look at Battleground states in the left sidebar.

Obama beats McCain in WI, while Clinton loses.
Obama beats McCain in Iowa, while Clinton loses.
Obama trounces McC in MN, while Clinton is close to margin of error.
Obama beats McCain in CO, while Clinton loses.
Obama beats McCain in MI, while Clinton loses.
Obma trounces McC in NJ, while Clinton is near MoE.
Obama ties Mc in VA, while Clinton loses.

Each Dem can beat McCain but has a different path to victory; unfair to insist Obama use Clinton's.


I'm in Wisconsin, so I oughta know (none / 0) (#161)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:08:17 PM EST

when I see silliness. You're looking at averages of polls from more than a month ago -- when you could focus on the most recent poll, post-Rev. Wright, post-Obama-wiping-out-in-primaries, etc. And even it is before the most recent Obamabombouts:

Wisconsin: Rasmussen 5/05 47 43 McCain +4.0

Knowing that, I won't even bother checking on the rest of your undoubtedly outdated data. Pfft.


You mean (none / 0) (#168)
by mattt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:45:30 PM EST

the way Hillary 'wiped out' in NC and OR? It's funny how only one side's victories count.

Rasmussen was 5/5; U of WI with Obama up 4.0 was only 2 weeks earlier. Rev. Wright and etc had been in play for a long while by then.

On the subject of polls, here's another that updates the Dem candidates' relative electability. Gallup now has Obama leading Clinton among both Hispanics and women.


: Well, now I mean you're a liar (none / 0) (#170)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:53:06 PM EST

as you must know, then, when Obama's pastor went ballistic at the National Press Club -- after the UW poll. (Plus, at only 345 polled, it has far lesser reliability.)
I know you're fairly new here, haven't been here a lot, but you really might want to lurk longer to realize that this isn't a blog where you get away with such crap.

Query: is the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM EST

checking out BTD's live blog of the conference call while the call is in progress?

: So meta! LOL (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:35 AM EST

Uncommitted votes for Richardson should go (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST

to Obama?

Why not? (none / 0) (#40)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST

We all know that they really "meant" to vote for Obama!

If we could have some fact-based determination as to what percentage of Uncommitted voters were voting for Obama rather than Edwards, Biden or Richardson, I'd be happy to give him that percentage.

But all of them? That's ridiculous.

Obama should have gone for the re-votes a long time ago. But then, he wouldn't have gotten that fake lead in delegates and popular vote that he trumpets night and day.

It's all about Obama (IAAO!)


70% of uncommitteds... (5.00 / 0) (#48)
by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:20:50 AM EST

...according to exit polling, would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ballot in Michigan. Therefore he should be apportioned at least that proportion of the uncommitteds. I'd also note that Dodd, Richardson and Edwards have since all endorsed Obama, so awarding him almost all of the uncommitteds doesn't exactly seem like a grave injustice. They had the opportunity to vote for Clinton if they wanted to, after all.


He can (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:24:13 AM EST

have the uncommitted delegates but not the votes imo. I think there should be some punishment for taking your name off the ballot. From now on candidates can take their names off ballots because they don't want to compete according to the Obama rulz.


I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST

Let him have the delegates. The voters are not his because he took his name off the ballot.


That's hilarious. I see the rules (none / 0) (#130)
by independent voter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:02:41 PM EST

are applied according to how they benefit what you want.
Funny


: Them's the (none / 0) (#141)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:21:43 PM EST

Obama rulz. Of course, Obama should never be held accountable for making a stupid mistake right? It's all the voters' fault is the Obama campaigns mantra.

In reality... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:29:46 AM EST

it will probably work out that way. MI has already elected the uncommitted delegates. Alot were declared Obama supporters so will vote for him although they are not "pledged" to. A few UAW members that competed and were elected will vote for whomever the UAW eventually endorses. Some others are undoubtedly Hillary supporters but once again, are not "pledged". Since these people already have been picked it seems the DNC has just to decide wether to count them as is, or at half vote, or not at all.

If the uncommitteds are counted just put them mentally into the super-delegate pool since they certainly have opinions but are not "pledged". The obsession with bean-counting pledges is now an obstacle. Their vote doesn't happen until August.


7% in those exit polls (5.00 / 3) (#75)
by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST

declared they supported Clinton. Add them to her vote.


The MI vote (none / 0) (#154)
by mattt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST

was undeniably flawed. A re-vote would be ideal; if that's not possible why not seat the delegates according to current polls of likely Democratic voters in the State? If they buy Clinton's argument that she is the champion of their rights while Obama has been trying to disenfranchise them, she should win in a landslide even more than 55%, right?


: Re: The MI vote (none / 0) (#191)
by Sleeper on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:20:00 AM EST

A revote just won't work unless the Michigan GOP is going to cooperate and have a revote too. And I doubt they will.
They'll reach some kind of equitable compromise on this soon enough. Not the "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine" approach Lanny Davis suggested, but one that reflects both Clinton's win and Obama's sizable turnout. People here seem to be very, very concerned about making sure every vote counts, for Clinton. (Obama supporters who voted Uncommitted in Michigan, though, should get nothing, naturally, because in this instance and this one alone, the candidate should be punished. Funny how that works.)

I think HRC people reached to the uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Prabhata on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST

Hillary had a very successful reach to get the MI uncommitted pledged to her. It was fair game because it was after BO decided to block the re-vote in MI and FL. Maybe that's why Howard is not supporting the uncommitted go to BO.

I don't think "It wasn't fair!" (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:04:38 AM EST

is a very strong argument, since Obama messed with the process by taking his name off the ballot, telling people it wouldn't count, urging supporters to vote uncommitted, then blocking the re-votes that would have resulted in a fair election.

No, I wouldn't go with that one.

Calgon take me............. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:06:48 AM EST

to......to a real democracy that exists someplace that I'm yet unaware of.

Re: MI uncommitteds (5.00 / 5) (#39)
by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:10:04 AM EST

Wolfson should have just said that each candidate could make their case to the uncommitted delegates from MI. But pledging them arbitrarily to Obama or Clinton is unfair to the voters.

Exactly. Uncommitted means uncommitted (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by Prabhata on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:43 AM EST

and they should be free to be independent.


Done deal (none / 0) (#81)
by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:34:07 AM EST

the delegates have already been selected. The candidates went after the delegates and all if not the majority went with Obama. Done.


: Obama needs them officially "pledged" (4.00 / 1) (#126)
by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:56:30 AM EST

The uncommitteds of MI should be regarded as super-delegates for counting purposes sinced they aren't "pledged". But that would allow Hillary to close the "pledged" delegate gap. And that perceived lead is Obama's only claim to the nomination anymore.

: that's ridiculous, but not surprising (none / 0) (#175)
by boredmpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:37:28 PM EST

The O campaign got 35% of the total vote per exit polls, they should not be receiving all the uncommitted delegates, for them to do so is fundamentally unfair. Gotta hand it to them for slick election leadership...too bad he doesn't lead on anything else.

It's not about Hillary; it's about the voters (5.00 / 4) (#41)
by Prabhata on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:12:35 AM EST

If voters had been given a re-vote, as HRC proposed, then all would be well. But BO thought it was alright to kill the re-vote, and he has no credibility in asking for any of the delegates that were uncommitted. They are free for the taking.

If it were about the voters... (none / 0) (#55)
by solon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:37 AM EST

Then both campaigns ought to have suggested elections that would have allowed all of the people to participate in the process who could have voted the first time. The Mail-In votes would have diminished the voice of minorities in Florida. The proposed elections in Michigan would have prevented voters from participating in those elections.

If the campaigns, and yes both camapaigns, desired revotes, then they would need to return, as close as possible, to the original conditions of the votes, allowing all of the democrats in Florida to participate (since it was a closed primary) and all voters in Michigan (since it was an open primary).

But neither of the two remaining candidates desired this as it would have hurt both of their positions.


Why do (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:31:46 AM EST

mail-ins diminish the vote of minorities???


Mail-In votes (none / 0) (#123)
by solon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:53:33 AM EST

tend to diminish the votes of certain demographic groups, especially those who live in urban areas, those who move frequently, and those who do not have stable addresses through the distribution of the ballots. (You can read concerns over the proposal in Florida here , here, or here.) Unfortunately, in the US, those who need their voice heard suffer the most.

On its face, Oregon stands as an exception. However, the state developed its mail-in vote for the primary over a long period of time, eliminating problems as it went along through the 20 year process. For Florida, a state with a history of voting problems, there would not have been time to implement a fair plan and a mail-in would have been its only option since counties got rid of their voting machines.


: Thanks! (none / 0) (#125)
by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST

That makes sense.

Uh (5.00 / 6) (#79)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:33:02 AM EST

The DNC rules bar voters from participating in both the Republican and Democratic primaries in the same year.

By insisting that Michigan had to give Democrats who crossed over in January a chance to participate in the revote, the Obama campaign was insisting on a condition that was impossible under the DNC rules, and they surely knew it.

As for Florida, since any revote plan would have had to pass Section 5 muster at the Department of Justice to ensure there was no adverse impact on minorities, the objection to mail-in voting was clearly just an effort to obstruct the process.

The game played by the Obama campaign was evidence to any objective observer. "Oh, we have no problem with a revote - but not THAT revote plan, or that one, or that one either." Just keep raising objections to every proposal until you run out the clock.


Not just DNC rules; also, state law. (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:39:57 AM EST

Nearly the entirety of the FDP (none / 0) (#100)
by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST

was against the mail in voting plan. Florida's congressional delegation was against it. IIRC they were unanimous in their opposition to the plan. The delegation includes Debbie Wasserman- Schultz, a Clinton National Co-Chair.

Florida has no experience in mail in voting and no mechanism to verify signatures. It was not a workable solution.


Heh (5.00 / 3) (#113)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:47:02 AM EST

That hardly rebuts my point that the Obama campaign managed to find objections to every single plan that was proposed in either state.

The comment I responded to mentioned the impact on minority voting. I explained why that objection was inoperative.


: My point is that while your argument (none / 0) (#152)
by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM EST

regarding Michigan is a valid one, there was virtual unanimity with respect to the Florida revote plan.
Thus, in Florida, there is plenty of blame to go around and the Clinton camp has to bear their fair share.
I agree that the impact on minority voting is something of a nonsequiter.

FL objected because they want (none / 0) (#156)
by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:54:03 PM EST

their vote counted as is. FL would not be able to do a mail-in? That is untrue. FL already has early/absentee voting so a system is in place and they do know how to do it. Everyone must have a signature on file to vote. The cost of the election was to be paid for by donors, even an independent source to count and verify ballots. They want their vote counted as is.


: Absentee voting is a far different animal than (none / 0) (#181)
by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:29:52 PM EST

a mail in election.
And early voting in Florida is a machine vote. You have to go to a designated polling place and cast your vote.

So then a MI revote (none / 0) (#155)
by mattt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:52:21 PM EST

would effectively disenfranchise people who crossed over in January after being told (including by HRC) their votes wouldn't count.


Ha! Good one, Ickes. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:37 AM EST

Whoopsie!

Glad to hear... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:18:19 AM EST

...you support apportioning the uncommitted vote(and presumably the uncommitted delegates as well) to Obama, BTD.

If the FL Edwards delegates break for Obama the way they've done elsewhere, then he'd net +135 pledged and +8 super delegates to Clinton's +178 pledged and +15 super delegates, with 30 additional supers from FL and MI up for grabs.

+143 to Obama's 1964 is 2107. +193 to Clinton's 1780 is 1973. He would need 103 more delegates. She would need 237 more.

There would be 326 uncommitted delegates left after that.
Assuming, for the moment, that Obama does very poorly in the last 3 primaries, he'll still get at least 35 delegates to Clinton's 51. That would put the totals at Obama 2142, Clinton 2024.

He would need 68 more delegates and she would need 186. There would be 240 uncommitted delegates after that.

But some of those uncommitted delegates are add-on delegates who haven't been selected yet. Obama is going to pick up at least 19 more from that process, while Clinton would gain, at best, another 18.

That would put the totals at Obama 2161, Clinton 2042. He'd need 49 more, she'd need 168, out of 203 remaining.

Conclusion?
Obama is no more than 50 superdelegates away from clinching the nomination under any plausible scenario, and less than 40 away from blocking Clinton from getting it.

He can let things play out for a while before pivoting on Florida and Michigan. Whether he waits a day or a week before offering to support as is seating(so long as he's assigned all non-clinton pledged delegates and uncommitteds) does not have an appreciable impact on his chances in those two states in the fall, in my view.

If that's the case (5.00 / 3) (#74)
by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST

He should just be as magnanimous as possible.


Obama must be afraid of something ... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by dwmorris on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:45:11 AM EST

that might cause a large shift of super delegates. If he really had it in the bag, he would not object so strongly to allowing his margin to shrink.

Keep hope alive.


: Clinton is a strong opponent (none / 0) (#132)
by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM EST

but he needs to see the big picture.

So then what's the problem (none / 0) (#96)
by bslev22 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:01 AM EST

with seating the delegations as BTD suggests? Your excellent numerical analysis avoids the obvious point, and that is that all delegates, but in particular superdelegates, can change their minds. Never happen you say? This is politics friend. But your math is excellent: the adding, the subtracting, all of it, really.


Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by dwmorris on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:47:37 AM EST

Obama treats his SD endorsements like an entitlement. Unfortunately for him, they don't get to vote until August. I'm looking forward to a long hot summer.


Real world politics... (none / 0) (#172)
by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:55:59 PM EST

...doesn't work that way. Once Obama has secured the necessary number of delegate commitments(somewhere between 2024 and 2210), shortly after June 3rd, the pressure on Clinton to concede (both within the party and in the media) will be enormous. If she insists on taking things to the convention, she will bleed superdelegate support in a hurry, as nobody wants to stay on that sinking ship.

At best she can concede that Obama is the "likely" nominee, suspend her campaign, and pledge to work hard for the nominee in the fall. If something horrible happens during the summer, she might have an outside shot at the nomination, but that's still pretty unlikely.


: Where we disagree is on the likihood of ... (none / 0) (#173)
by dwmorris on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:10:53 PM EST

something horrible happening during the summer. I think Obama is in for a very rough ride. To make matters worse, he is already looking unelectable and the 527s haven't even unloaded on him yet.
Regarding the pressure on Clinton to concede, this may go down in history as one of the Democratic Party's most profoundly stupid tactical blunders.

Folks. I agree 150 percent with BTD (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by bslev22 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:21:47 AM EST

that the delegations that were elected should be seated at this point. I have to say that Wolfson and Ickes, based on BTD's report, seem like they were absolutely unprepared or incapable of responding to the kinds of questions that all of us are dealing with every single day at this and other websites and in our daily discourse. I'm really disappointed in both of them.

: I'm amazed (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:32:27 AM EST

at how many members of the RBC simply have misinformation. It's unconscionable to me that people who have such an important role to play do not take the time to study the issue thoroughly and make sure they are aware of all the facts in the case.

: Agreed. (none / 0) (#69)
by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST

But I'd also like to hear similar questions asked of the Obama camp.

This is the problem I have with the Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:36:57 AM EST

campaign on this issue. I agree that the delegations should be seated. But she has said she will carry on the fight if, after conferring with the parties of both FL and MI, they want her to do so. Yet . . .

"Florida is asking for half of the delegates. Ickes says that is not right. Michigan's plan is also not agreed to by Clinton camp at all."

She is unwilling to accept what the states are asking for. It would be easier to support her in this if it didn't seem like a mere strategem to keep her campaign alive.

You misunderstood (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST

Ickes was correcting the reporter.


: I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#124)
by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:53:55 AM EST

It seems like what you've written that the end game from the Clinton camp's perspective is to seat Florida as is and seat Michigan with all the uncommitteds going to Obama. Was that your sense?
If so, I think they are correct that we will have a resolution of the issue well before the convention. There's no reason for Obama to contest that result.
The question is whether the DNC will be so stubborn as to insist on a punishment such as halving the delegates. If so, Obama will get the blame even if he endorsed seating the delegations as is.

Ausman (none / 0) (#105)
by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:44:11 AM EST

Florida isn't an entity that speaks with one voice. The Clinton campaign can make a justification that it is doing what the people want (and surely there are some people from each state which support every position).

The appeal to be heard on May 31 is by Ausman. He had to appeal based on the rules and the rules state a 50% reduction. So that is all he can ask for because his case is that the RBC exceeded its authority by increasing the punishment and the punishment should follow the original rules.


: That's not correct (none / 0) (#114)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM EST

according to Ickes,, that is an alternative remedy.

: Here is the answer (none / 0) (#117)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:50:24 AM EST

Ausman appeal:

The first appeal notes the DNC Charter states Democratic US Senators, Democratic US House Members, former DNC Chairs and DNC Members "shall" be delegates to the Democratic National Convention. This "bill of rights" given to 23 Floridians cannot be taken away by a subordinate body created by the DNC since that subordinate body does not have the authority to do so.
The second appeal states the penalty for violating the "timing rule" "shall be" a fifty percent (50%) reduction in the pledged delegates and the loss of the three (3) unpledged add-on delegates. This means Florida should have at least 92 pledged delegates.
The remaining 93 pledged delegates and three (3) unpledged add-on delegates I hope to win at a later time if not on this appeal itself.
In other words, it is incorrect to state that Florida's best-case scenario is 50% of the delegates. However, I think you are correct that that is the maximum redress they can be granted by THIS PARTICULAR COMMITTEE.
If Florida wins this appeal, at least in theory, then the fight goes on to argue that FL shouldn't have been penalized at all because it was the Republicans' fault, because other states like NH weren't punished for violating the same rules, or whatever.

I like this too: (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:37:22 AM EST

Ickes said it ill behooves a democratic nominee to ignore any state but especially states like florida and Michigan.

Um, duh ffing duh?

Seems obvious to most (5.00 / 1) (#116)
by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST

but Howard Dean said FL and MI aren't any more important than any other states.

Maybe he meant any other 2 states with 44 combined electoral votes, in which case he is right.


: In my opinion, (none / 0) (#122)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST

some people on the Rules Committee may have thought this was a good way to start the reform of the nomination process. Howard Dean always wanted a 50-state strategy.
Maybe this strategy will work for the next time, considering that most people now realize how stupid the Dem process is.
Is the DNC that smart? Probably not. :-)
But it would be interesting if something good came out of this disaster.

Simply put, it doesn't matter what (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by Radix on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:45:35 AM EST

Clinton originally said, meant, regarding Florida or Michigan. The right side of the argument has always been that they should count. Let them be seated, then the SD's can make up their minds as to whom to vote for. They are free to use whatever method they chose. If the SD'S wish to consider Hilary's motivations for being on the right side of the FL/MI question, that's their choice.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

: Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#120)
by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:52:39 AM EST

Whatever they said before was previous to all facts being known. Inoperative. There is no shame in adjusting position to facts. I wish we already had a president that knew how to do that.

All of this would have been so much simpler (1.00 / 2) (#8)
by sarissa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:10 AM EST

had Clinton won Iowa.

Who dropped the ball?

The Iowans? (5.00 / 6) (#18)
by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:13 AM EST

No, (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:50 AM EST

it would all be much simpler if Gore won in 2000.

Then again, we would probably be facing LIEBERMAN for President...


Nah... (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:58:46 AM EST

Lieberman would have faced impeachment hearings by now.


: Nah (none / 0) (#65)
by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:28:09 AM EST

think if we had more power Lieberman would be pulled to our side.

LOL. And we'd all be pulling for him too! (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:10 AM EST

Political chaos theory. A butterfly ballot flaps it's wings in FL. And 8 years later even half the Democratic party is against counting votes.


: Oh.......My........God! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:29 AM EST

You know, I'm one of these people that firmly believe that the U.S. must support Israel because they are a democracy. I'd probably fricken be Liebermangirl. Good Lord.......WTF

: 8 years later Lieberman endorses McCain! (5.00 / 3) (#76)
by lilburro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:31:40 AM EST

OMG- (none / 0) (#129)
by magisterludi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:00:46 PM EST

I had TOTALLY forgotten Joementum was on the ticket! (goosebumps and shiver)


Clearly, Clinton ought to have hired (5.00 / 3) (#97)
by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:34 AM EST

many a bus to bring Illinois voters over the Mississippi River, too, taking advantage of Iowa's inane residency rules. My, my, her bad.


Does Ickes see (none / 0) (#7)
by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:46:36 AM EST

the importance of seating the delegates in time to effect the nomination process as more important to the GE or the nomination?

I believe seating the delegates will only be viewed as legitimate for purposes of how Floridians will vote in the general if they are seated in time to effect the nomination process. Did Ickes give any indication that is what the campaign believes too?

I could be misunderstanding (none / 0) (#106)
by trublueCO on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST

but it seems like what they are saying is that if Michigan and Florida are seated with anything BUT their full delegate strengh, then the Clinton campaign will take it to the convention. Am I understanding them correctly?

Let us halve the Florida delegates (per the rules), assign them proportionally based on the results, and give each candidate all of their original popular vote.

Michigan is much trickier, but they should at least lose half of their delegates for breaking the rules.

: They did NOT say that (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:46:03 AM EST

If I wrote that, I was wrong.

Jacoby Creek School (none / 0) (#128)
by kaleidescope on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST

Back in late January, the kids at Jacoby Creek School in Arcata, California held an election to see who they supported for the Democratic nomination. They were told in advance that their votes wouldn't really count for anything, but they voted anyway. Now the DNC is sticking to its anti-democratic plan not to count these kids' votes.

Well it's time to say their votes BETTER COUNT. Not to count these votes already cast would be the moral equivalent of blowing up the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, the Dred Scott decision and the Florida recount travesty COMBINED.

And on a practical level, I don't think the Democratic Party can afford to alienate, not only these future actual voters, but their parents as well.

Please join me in writing Howard Dean to demand that the Jacoby Creek kids' votes count toward the number of pledged delegates each candidate will receive from California.

: LOL (none / 0) (#134)
by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:05:46 PM EST

Did you see Senator Levin's (MI) proposal for (none / 0) (#145)
by kindness on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:31:18 PM EST

seating Michigan's delegates?

What do you think?

it's completely unfair (none / 0) (#186)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:47:13 PM EST

and we've explained why dozens of times. Check our archives.


: Jeralyn, do you have any information (none / 0) (#187)
by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:54:50 PM EST

as to whether this particular conference call was recorded, and, if so, is it available for us to listen to? Thanks.

I'm just curious (none / 0) (#184)
by dell on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:38:27 PM EST

...BTD and others here: is it seriously your contention that there was not one single primary voter in the entire state of Michigan who actually supported Barack Obama? Correspondingly, is it your contention that every single primary voter in the entire state of Michigan was a Hillary Clinton supporter?

Doesn't that strike you as just a little remarkable? Or just a little incredible?

no one said that (none / 0) (#185)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:46:04 PM EST

please don't misrepresent our arguments.


: Umm (none / 0) (#188)
by dell on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:18:31 PM EST

...and methinks that rather than responding to my (rather argumentative) post, your time would probably be better spent with one more polish on that brief, or one more mental rehearsal of your argument for the hearing...

: Actually, I am NOT misrepresenting (none / 0) (#189)
by dell on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:02:44 AM EST

Instead, that is what Ickes said and that is what you said (your statement is "they should remain uncommitted"). Under his statement and under your comment, HRC gets all of her MI delegates. And no one else gets a single one--because they would then be compelled, on the first and presumably subsequent ballots, to remain, and to vote, "Uncommitted."
Does it not, then, follow, for that to be the result, that no other candidate had any support whatsoever? Or do you concede that what you are contending for is not, in reality, a representative result?
And is it not possible that maybe, just maybe, there were at least a handful of people in the whole Democratic primary electorate in Michigan who were not perfectly enthralled by Senator Clinton? Like, oh, maybe Congressman Conyers? And his wife?
OTOH, what you are proposing is, not surprisingly, what the Clinton campaign is setting up to have happen. That is why they busily planted as many HRC upporters as supposedly uncommitted delegates at the MI state convention as they possibly could. And why, knowing that had occurred, the top Michigan Democrats have since proposed the 69-59 split.