Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Cinton's "Nuclear Option"
I don't see this posted, but it looks like news to me:
Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option
Hillary Clinton's campaign has a secret weapon to build its delegate
count, but her top strategists say privately that any attempt to deploy
it would require a sharp (and by no means inevitable) shift in the
political climate within Democratic circles by the end of this month.With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton,
her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month
-- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member
Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give
Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to
Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an
estimate.
Not knowing anything about party mechanics, I'd never heard of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, or any hint that anything but the Credentials Committee could affect whether Michigan and Florida gets seated.
Of course, this is as explosive a strategy as taking the nomination from Obama in the credentials process.
Hit recommend if you'd like this to stay on the list. I'm being forced offline in a few minutes, so you guys are on your own until tonight.
Comments (15)
Dammit, Lynn Dee beat me to it. Forget this blog and post messages on Lynn's.
May 4, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's her thread:
shrunklink.com/aqal
May 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that didn't work.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html
May 4, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either thread is fine by me.
I was wondering if there's a way to combine this story with the James Carville "Hillary's 3rd ball" story.
How about:
"Hillary says she'll remove all three of her balls, stuff 'em with goose down and send them to the Rules Committee in exchange for seating Michigan and Florida!"
May 4, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
cue the Talking Heads "Burning Down the House"
May 4, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
To seat two of the largest states in the union is not "stealing the nomination from Obama." It's setting the Democrats up for a chance to win in 08, while simultaneously helping her own cause.
May 5, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The assumption is that those delegates definitely wouldn't be seated otherwise. Both Howard Dean and the Obama campaign assure that the delegates will be seated in a way fair to both candidates -- helping the ensure the victory for Democrats in the Fall. This story suggests that Hill will use her influence to make it go her way -- helping to divide the mildly divided Dem electorate.
It wouldn't be a matter of making her case or proving her value. It reads as an inside job.
May 5, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Now, does the committee have the power to decide how the votes will be counted? 50%? Can anyone overturn HRC camps turning undecideds over to her in MI?
May 5, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
In effect this so called nuclear option is a redo of Florida 2000. Relevant governing committees would have to be taken over by Clinton to seat delegations counter to prior decisions; the apparent intent is to provide enough delegates to secure the nomination. Too many individuals and interwoven interest would have coalesce, it ain't going to happen.
May 5, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe its no longer an "if," the link is updated at 11am EDT today
May 5, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine. Everyone I know...die-hard Democrats (including my mother who voted for Hillary) will vote for John McCain if Hillary Clinton pulls these shennanigans.
I tried to keep above the board. I tried being polite and classy in my posts. But I am done. I would sooner see McCain continue Bush's policies than reward this horrible witch of a woman.
Screw the SCOTUS. Hillary is a nightmare and must be stopped. And my first post-election donation will be to the first credible, moderate Republican who throws their hat in to beat Shrilliary in New York.
Go ahead, destroy the party. It will be my pleasure to watch you go down in flames... you conniving, backstabbing, self-serving witch.
May 5, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
this article is a FLAT OUT LIE
hillary DOES NOT control "50% of the rules committee"
if you read far enough into this piece of shit article you will learn that the whole idea is based on Howard Dean stabbing the netroots in the back
ain't gonna happen
as soon as the author mentioned Howard Dean, I knew I was reading a pro-hillary fantasy
I don't care how hard the hillarybots clap their hands, the president-hillary fairy is DEAD, and it ain't coming back
May 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this doesn't come to pass. It worries me that her campaign (as validated today) really is even considering it. At what point does winning come at too high a price?
I understand everyone saying that it's better to vote for ANY Democrat over McCain. I've said so myself, and am fully aware that things will change before November. But that said--at what point does having ANY Democrat in office become more costly than having NO Democrat in office? Think about it. Of our last 4 presidents, three of them were Republicans, right? We finally got Bill Clinton in, and he was doing well until the Republican attack machine helped bring him down (he also helped), and we were rewarded with 8 years of BUSH II. If we get a BAD Democrat in office, that Democrat could sour any good feelings people have toward the Democrats as an answer against Bush (as, BTW, the Congress has already been starting to sour it through not showing more SPINE). We are wasting a great opportunity.
If we got McCain, then at least we'd stand a better chance of EIGHT years of a Democratic president instead of four years of disappointment that would whiplash the country back to the Republican side.
May 5, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - I'm well aware that those four years of McCain would lead to a cost in human lives that is probably not worth paying, even for political far-sightedness. I'm not wholly sure that "obliterate Iran" Clinton will go through with helping us save those lives.
May 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think once Obama hits 2024, even more of her supers will switch, suring up his lead to the point where nothing she does matters.
Rather than being humiliated in such a way, ie. being shoved out the door, she might choose to drop out in early June.
May 5, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment