Hilarious Column on Primaries By An Old Brandeis Buddy (Spoof, Not real)
Syndicated Column by Rick Horowitz
SACRAMENTO, -- In a move certain to roil the already contentious battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton called today for further adjustments in the party’s delegate-selection procedures.
Speaking to a noontime rally here, Mrs. Clinton urged that delegates from states holding primaries or caucuses on Super Tuesday be allocated, at least in part, on an alphabetical basis. Specifically, she suggested that, if any state’s name begins with the same letter as any candidate’s name, then that candidate be awarded all the delegates from that state.
“This is a way to make sure that voters’ voices are really heard,” Mrs. Clinton explained, standing in front of a giant banner filled with the word “Solutions.“
“They deserve the chance to support candidates who truly understand their situation. What could be fairer than that?”
The Clinton camp has already called for delegates from Michigan and Florida to be seated at the Democratic convention, despite an earlier decision by party officials to strip both states of their delegates for violating primary-scheduling rules -- and despite the candidates’ agreement not to campaign in either of those states.
This latest proposal, if approved, would dramatically alter the terrain for the critical cluster of Feb. 5 primaries and caucuses, although the Clinton camp sought to characterize the plan as a matter of “voter equity.”
Under the proposal, Mrs. Clinton, whose last name begins with a “C,” would automatically receive all 60 delegates from Connecticut, all 71 delegates from Colorado, and -- the biggest prize of all -- all 441 delegates from California.
Former senator John Edwards, whose last name begins with an “E,” would receive no delegates, while Sen. Barack Obama, whose last name begins with an “O,” would receive only Oklahoma’s relatively meager allotment of 47. While Ohio and Oregon are also “O” states, neither will be voting on Super Tuesday; the Clinton plan apparently applies only to that day’s voting.
“That’s just the way it worked out,” said Howard Wolfson, the campaign’s communications director. “Some other year, it might come out a different way altogether.”
Anticipating criticism for seeming to shift the rules in the middle of the game, Mrs. Clinton tried instead to tie the move to her overall campaign themes.
“I’ve said all along that only one of us is really committed to change,” she told the crowd. “This is just another example.”
Spokesmen for the Obama and Edwards campaigns were struck momentarily speechless upon hearing of Mrs. Clinton’s proposal. Even after they regained their voices, they declined to be quoted.
Other Democrats, however, were not so reluctant, although none would agree to be quoted by name.
“They just don’t know when to stop, do they?” said one senior party official, referring to both the candidate and her husband, former president Bill Clinton.
“Didn’t they always used to talk about ‘work hard and play by the rules’?” sniffed a longtime Democratic strategist. “Well, they’re half right.”
Mr. Clinton, meanwhile, was campaigning in Tennessee, where he scolded a reporter from a Nashville television station who asked about Monday’s endorsement of Mr. Obama by Sen. Edward Kennedy -- an endorsement motivated at least in part, reports indicate, by Mr. Kennedy’s growing distress at questionable campaign tactics by the Clintons.
“You’re loving this, aren’t you?” Mr. Clinton responded, his face reddening. “All you people are about is stirring things up -- you just love putting me on the ropes.”
Asked by another reporter whether his outbursts might be harming Hillary Clinton’s prospects, either for gaining the nomination or for prevailing in November, Mr. Clinton shot back, “You leave my wife out of this!”
# # #
Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.
That was satire? You could have fooled me!
Jan
January 30, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I got this from Hillary today. It's also hilarious. It's pegged to her big Florida win yesterday!!!!
Dear Sean,
You can make the difference.
I know I told you our campaign journey would be filled with high-stakes twists and turns. But I never knew it would be quite as dramatic as this. And last night we celebrated another big moment in this campaign with our resounding victory in Florida.
Now we face the biggest day of the campaign on Tuesday, with 22 races across the country. And no one can predict the outcome.
In a race this close, whatever you and I do now can make the difference. Every campaign stop, every voter we talk to, and every dollar you give can be the difference on Tuesday. Only our online supporters like you can act decisively enough to make sure the excitement and energy of this victory carries through on February 5.
Contribute now. We're just days away from the biggest day of our campaign.
At every rally, every campaign event, you can see it in people’s eyes and hear it in their voices. Millions of people in 22 states are cherishing their opportunity to be part of history -- their chance to play a compelling personal role next Tuesday in moving America out of the Bush era and into the future.
They know that everything we care about -- the values we live by, the economic prosperity our families need, the restoring of American leadership in the world, the future of our environment -- depend on electing a president who is ready to lead.
When we began this journey together, this is the moment you and I hoped for -- the chance to use every ounce of our energy, strength, and passion to convince millions of people to join us in moving America forward.
Contribute now. We only have six days to reach millions of people.
The stakes are high, and I need you to throw yourself heart and soul into this remarkable moment. That's exactly what I'm doing, criss-crossing the country, doing everything I can to carry our campaign to victory next Tuesday.
Thank you so much for sharing this incredible journey with me -- and for the spirit and passion you are bringing to our campaign. I promise that as president, I will carry your voice with me to the White House.
Sincerely,
Hillary
January 30, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127
The failure of the DNC to find a way to penalized the violation of the party rules by the party hierarchies in the relevant states without penalizing the innnocent voters violates this principle.
If Obama is willing to accept a nomination which would be overturned by recognizing the voters of Michigan and Florida who have been disenfranchised by the DNC he is no democrat.
Earlier in the season I set a bar for Republican candidates -- any influence I might have on the other side would be exerted only for candidates who would conduct free and fair elections. It did not occur to me that this would be a consideration on the Democratic side.
January 30, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Hillary was against disenfranchising the Florida and Michigan voters from the beginning, was she. Which is why she never signed a pledge not to campaign in the two states. Hmm...
The truth is that the DNC sets the rules, and Florida and Michigan violated those rules. And they were punished by the DNC. Don't pretend you can't see that this is a thinly veiled attempt by Hillary to change the rules mid-game, rules that she happily agreed to when she wasn't expecting any real opposition to her run.
Of course, the whole 'equal rights' thing is utterly irrelevant with the whole staggered primary system to begin with, as the early votes are clearly worth more than the others. So maybe you're just trying to say that the primary system is completely unfair and should be changed?
January 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the DNC is not the final decision maker here, you just have to understand some details of our party rules.
The DNC is the authoritative body between conventions, and the delegates have a sub-division within the DNC called the Rules and the Credentials Commission, and the currently operative DNC ruling would be a product of their recommendation to the whole DNC.
But as we approach convention, we will be creating Rules, Credentials and Platform Committees. These are made up of two delegates from each state, one F, one M, and along with single delegates from say the Virgin Islands, Guam and Americans Abroad, etc, these committees become the critical arenas where the decision of the DNC can and will be appealed.
Aside from Gender Balance, the selection of the Committee delegates is a function of State Parties, and once they have their delegations set, they, along with the SuperDelegates from the States will meet and select those posted to the Committees. In essence, the Candidate with the most delegates state by state dominates the selection process. If Obama has more delegates in a state, he can put his own delegates on the committees. Likewise with Clinton.
Sometime before the Convention opens, these committees meet, and an appeal from a ruling of the DNC is a legitimate agenda item. The committee will hold hearings, and write a Majority Report. If, (and I think it is 25% of the Committee Members) oppose the Majority Report, they can write a Minority Report, and the two reports, Minority First, go to the floor for resolution (otherwise known as a Floor Fight). The decision of the Convention is final, not subject to appeal.
There is another route to the Floor, and that is by Petition, and while I am not certain of the number, about 40% of the delegates credentialed to the Convention must sign the Petition to move it to the floor. Again, any vote on the floor is final -- no appeal.
Considerations,,,,
Either way, should this go to the Convention Floor, the debate and vote will come before the Convention takes up Nominations, and the Credentials in question will not be voted during this Floor Process. But if the addition of the Florida and Michigan delegates takes one candidate or the other to or very close to a First Ballot Nomination, the vote on Credentials will essentially be the Nomination. (That's why knowing these rules is very very useful knowledge this year.)
Nuther consideration... by August we will be playing General Election Strategy, and neither of our candidates will want to piss off Flordia or Michigan by not letting their delegates access to the floor, and to their votes. They will want a smooth process that unites the convention. Just exactly how Howard Dean manages this will be very very interesting. There will be very heavy pressure to avoid a Floor Fight that leaves people embittered. If one candidate or another has pledged delegates sufficent to win the Nomination without Florida and Michigan, it will be smooth. If the decision to void the DNC ruling and seat these delegates changes who has the majority delegate count -- all hell could break loose.
So watch those meetings of State Delegations where the Committee Members are selected. That, my friends is the nexus of coming attractions.
Sara -- Former Chair of two DFL State Convention Credentials Committees. (who else would have all these rules memorized.)
January 30, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for such an information-packed post. The process you describe seems to me to be a very ineffective (and disengenuous) way of doing business, however. If the DNC makes a ruling which affects the strategic decisions; the very way the candidates act during this highly volatile time, and then change the rules later, how can that possibly promote level playing field? Particularly since the rule change will likely favor the old-guard DNC favorites. It seems to me to smack of the smoke-filled room.
We didn't like it when the Supreme Court got to decide who our President would be, after the fact. I don't think anyone will like it if the DNC starts to waft the same fishy smell. After all, Hillary was unopposed in Michigan -- Obama withdrew based on the DNC's own ruling.
Don't you think Democrats should at least pretend to play fair? (I don't mean this to sound like I am blaming you. I realize that you were just providing a huge amount of information.) Just want to know how you feel about it. Thanks
Jan
January 30, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had a taste for Floor Fights since I was eleven years old, when my Dad and I sat in front of the radio -- listened to Hubert Humphrey's Sunshine Speech, and then kept a running talley on the vote on the Minority Report on the Civil Rights Plank in the 1948 Democratic Platform. Mom was pissed as we were supposed to be at relatives for a picnic, and she had the Potato Salad all iced and packed, and wanted to be off.
Floor Fights frequently establish a change in the Historical Trends -- the fight in 48 was the beginning of pushing the Segregationists out of the power slot in the Democratic Party, the floor fight over credentials at the Republican Convention in 1952 between the Ike and Taft forces, cut the legs out from under Republican Isolationism, and turned them toward Vandenberg Style Internationalism. The fight in 1964 over seating the Freedom Democrats from Mississippi applied Civil Rights rules to the whole Democratic Party a year before we got Voting Rights. The fights in 1972 over seating the California and Illinois delegations were about diminishing the machine power in delegate selection, and establishing proportional representation and gender equity. So I have a soft spot for floor fights about things that really matter. I think what good ones do is toll the bells and announce culture change.
January 30, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink