« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Clinton Suppoters: Be Careful What You Wish For
From the Washington Post's The Trail:
"A federal judge in Tampa has again tossed out a lawsuit filed by a Florida political consultant angry that his vote in the state's Democratic primary will not count. Victor DiMaio's lawsuit contended that the Democratic National Committee is discriminating against Florida voters.
Judge Richard A. Lazzara agreed with the DNC, which said that it its practices are not discriminatory and political parties have a constitutional right to determine how delegates are selected in their nominating process."
On Saturday, the Clinton and Obama campaigns will each present their cases to the Rules and Bylaws Committee concerning the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates. While this may appear to be a simple matter, it is far from it. Saturday's decision could well change forever the way the Democratic nominating process works.
First off, it's important to remember that this issue has already been settled. The Rules and Bylaws Committee has made its decision, the votes were counted, and all parties have signed off on the decision. All of the candidates went into the race knowing that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated and, in an oft-quoted statement from October of last year, Hillary acknowledged her understanding of and agreement to the rules. And yet the Clinton campaign now seems determined to have the rules changed in the middle of a contentious nominating contest.
Let's be clear: this is not about some high-minded concern by the Clinton campaign for the rights of the citizens of Florida and Michigan. The Clintons' concern about those states' delegates extends only as far as those delegates might help Hillary secure the nomination. You can be quite certain that if Obama was behind in this race, and needed those states in order to compete, the Clinton campaign would be fighting equally hard to prevent those delegates from being seated. What this is really about is an exception. The Clinton campaign wants the Rules and Bylaws Committee to make a special exception to the rules--an exception that would favor them and would allow them to make their case to the superdelegates. The case, of course, being that this race is so close that a winner cannot be determined, and that the superdelegates should hand the nomination to Hillary, based upon some metric other than the delegate count. The public outrage that the Clintons are attempting to generate is a smokescreen. Their intention is to convince you that there's something dishonorable and possibly undemocratic about sticking to the rules that all parties agreed to. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Here's the point you need to consider:
If the Clinton campaign somehow manages to convince the Rules and Bylaws Committee to change the rules and make an exception in this case, this will set a precedent that will forever be part of the Party's nominating process. It will also threaten the independence and authority of the DNC, since, once an exception has been made, aggrieved candidates in the future <em>will</em> be able to claim discrimination any time they are denied an exception--citing the current situation as a precedent. Lawsuits will be filed, and the courts will hear cases. And, ironically, we could be stuck with a situation similar to Florida in 2000, where the courts may very well be in a position to decide the nominee of the Democratic Party instead of leaving that decision up to the voters.
This is the situation we are faced with, and it presents a question that supporters of Senator Clinton should consider very carefully. Because this is a sword that, once unsheathed, will forever cut both ways. A decision in your favor now may very well lead to a very unhappy situation in the future. Is this what you want? Think carefully before you answer.
Comments (67)
The RBC boldly protecting us from the Abyss.
Anyway, if the DNC Staff Memo is accurate, the RBC doesn't have the authority to order lunch, much less restore any delegates.
May 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, if I could edit this post, I might consider spelling the word "suppoters" differently.
May 28, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
But then again, you might not :)
I made a similar point a few days back: even if seating the FL/MI delegations might be the most politically expedient course of action designed to shut Hillary up, it would still be wrong. Once the party loses control of the nominating process, it's time to start looking for a new party. That's why some sort of punishment for the two states is necessary on principle.
May 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. This is a very slippery slope. I sure hope the DNC lawyers and the Hillary supporters on the R&B Committee are thinking clearly about the future health of the Party.
May 28, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually going to be really interesting. I would assume that the Clintonites on the R&B Committee are party operatives first and foremost, and Hillary supporters next. I am curious how they will behave - who will they put first, Hillary or the party?
May 28, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seating them at 50% seems like the best solution.
May 29, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
That comment really fits the expression on your avatar's face.
LOL!
May 28, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez, this was supposed to be posted right after hrebendorf's 2d comment about editing; not way down here.
*sigh*
May 28, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would spell it "suppositories."
May 29, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like suppoters. Kind of a mash-up of supporters and voters.
May 29, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
didn't we once have that ability? what happened? I like seeing the pictures that identify us, but I actually prefer the correction capability.
May 28, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following comment applies here as well:
"Jeez, this was supposed to be posted right after hrebendorf's 2d comment about editing; not way down here.
*sigh*"
May 29, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Been hollering for months that the whole process needs to be junked and started all over. The new head of the DNC(the joke thats there now has to go)needs to grow a pair and do their job. Open primaries and proportional delagate splitting obviously has to go.
But, yes rabbit. Thought about it and the rules committee will be screwing MI and FL if nothing is done.
May 28, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually--as we all know--it was the state legislatures of those two states that screwed their voters by choosing to defy DNC rules, even when they KNEW that it would result in their delegates not being seated.
The DNC is not screwing anyone. In fact, they are protecting voters in the other 48 states from getting screwed by two states that chose to break the rules.
May 28, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, and you obviously thought the jeb bush gang was simply making sure all the votes were counted in 2000. Whatever
May 28, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time you turn up, you demonstrate a troubling difficulty grasping simple facts. You should consider finding a proctologist to get your head free and clear... You'll thank me in the long run.
May 28, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the FL people really thought they were getting screwed when they defied DNC rules.
Video of a current Hillary interview and the actual footage of the FL DNC vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIXBtHfr0C8
May 29, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silly Wabbit Delegates are only for Hillary!!!
(aka. THE IRON *****)OBAMA gets None!!!!
Sorry guy I just could not resist.
May 29, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Troll.
May 28, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The new head of the DNC(the joke thats there now has to go)needs to grow a pair and do their job.
Hear, hear! Why, I think back to the no-nonsense leadership of McAuliffe when he was DNC chairman. Michigan tried to break the rule about January primaries and he slapped 'em down hard. Made it clear that if they tried to pull something like that, they'd get zero delegates, and he was tough enough to make the threat stick. Levin backed down.
Unlike this current DNC chair, who is letting McAuliffe walk all over him and having a hard time getting any penalty to stick. If it were McAuliffe-2004 standing up to McAuliffe-2008 then there's no way McAuliffe-2008 would get away with it. McAuliffe-2004 would tear McAuliffe-2008 a new one and send him packing!
May 28, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it!
May 29, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that proportional representation is a good thing and you cannot avoid open primaries in some states because not all states register voters by party. Try again.
May 29, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Proportional representation is a very good thing and - though I'm probably alone on this - I've always thought that the general election should work the same way. The way it's set up now (winner takes all), actually discourages people from voting. If you're a liberal in Tennessee, forget about it. Or a conservative in NY or CA.
I always think about this scenario (it's unlikely but definitely possible): Candidate A wins 48 states by fewer than 1,000 votes in each. Candidate B wins two states handily - let's say NY and CA - by about 2,000,000 votes each. Candidate B clearly has broader appeal but, per the rules, Candidate A gets the win... That's just backwards.
May 29, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yuk-yuk.
Let's have a process that elevates the "thinking" of hicks like Louisville1975, our resident racist.
May 29, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see that you're on team Obama but, calling someone a "hick" and then calling them the "resident racist"... nope. not really working for me.
Just sayin'. ;)
May 29, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, in general.
But I've had a history and issues with that particular poster.
May 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 28, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would do far more than send a message. It would set a legal precedent.
May 28, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How it would it be a legal precedent?
The argument is about the DNC's rules, not state or federal law.
Or are you think of a lawsuit based on breach of contract?
May 28, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
People are throwing the term legal around far too casually. The Democratic parties can make the process of choosing their nominee for POTUS by playing rock-paper-scissors and it wild be "legal". The DNC is Constitutionally bulletproof under the law to do as it wants from a legal perspective.
Violating and trashing its own rules, and the political fallout for how it deals with this is a different issue altogether (and actually the only relevant one as far as this rules decisions go).
May 28, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. Read the judgment. The reason the judge threw the case out is because he determined that the DNC's practices were "not discriminatory." As soon as the DNC makes an exception and refuses to make another under similar circumstances, they risk losing that protection. All it would take is a good attorney with the right angle.
May 28, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a link to the actual judgment, as opposed to the news reports.
I'm not being snarky, I just find that sometimes the news media oversimplifies or overlooks significant information when discussing court opinions.
May 29, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was an oral ruling and I had a link to a transcript, but now I can't seem to find it. At any rate, the case is DiMaio v. The Democratic National Committee--perhaps you'll have better luck scaring up a copy. Of course, this thing was tossed out without ever going to trial, so no actual verdict was rendered. But the key to the judge's opinion seemed to be that he saw no evidence of "invidious discrimination" on the part of the DNC against the plaintiff. The judge stated that "There is not one scintilla of evidence that the DNC...ever intentionally discriminated against Mr. Dimaio. If there's any resolution to this case, it resides in the political process--not here."
This case may suggest that the courts will never hear cases involving internal party disputes. That's best, obviously. And, indeed, the Supreme Court has found for the independence of political parties in past cases. But the way these things get morphed into something ugly is through a gradual chipping away. All it takes is one dumb mistake and one determined litigant and you've got a problem. We'll see what happens on Saturday, but it's got to be a compromise, rather than a victory for the Clintons. The way some Hillary supporters talk, they're hoping the R&B Committee just hands her the nomination. That would not be a good thing, obviously.
May 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read today's judgment.
May 28, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their punishment was a "time out." Presumably they have learned their lesson. JK
May 29, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that were the case then why did MI not learn anything from the previous time outs they have been given for breaking this same rule?
May 29, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If the Clinton campaign somehow manages to convince the Rules and Bylaws Committee to change the rules and make an exception in this case, this will set a precedent that will forever be part of the Party's nominating process."
No, actually it will only last until the party rewrites the rules again. Remember, these rules can be changed by the DNC whenever they feel like it. Think your frat house rules!
In any event, the two cases you cite are actually unrelated. And no, no one is going to steal the election. The only leverage the Clintons have is to convince the super delegates to do what they are entitled to do, vote their conscious. And they will.
May 28, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fully expect that they will and they will announce those votes on the fourth securing the nomination for Sen Obama. The only thing that is still unknown is wether Sen Clinton concedes graciously or Hillary goes all Sunset Blvd on us.
May 29, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, sweetie.
No one has done more for the RBC than Barack Obama.
May 28, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that this was the day Audie Murphy died in a car crash.
I just automatically think of May 28 as Audie Death Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up.
May 28, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's Mnemonic Calendar: I like this and I want to see more of your work...
May 28, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that this was the day the Steamship Empress of Ireland sank and 1,024 people drowned.
I just automatically think of May 29 as Empress of Ireland Sinking Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you. That's just how I remember it's May 29.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up.
May 28, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though it freaks me out that the Mnemonic Calendar's "Reply" doesn't work when everyone else's does. How does he/she do that???!!!
May 29, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Betcha it's the apostrophe. Single or double quotes seem to fry the interface.
May 29, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Andrew told me it was the apostrophe. Remember "present" aka slumlord - had the same deal.
May 29, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Commenter, sorry I didn't have time to read your comment,....
I was dodging sniper fire while trying to get hard working people,.. white people, to vote for me.
Seriously I could have been assassinated just like, (oh wait unlike some people I just realized it would be inappropriate to finish this comment.)
Can we give this gotha sh*t a break? You know damned well Obama's not sexist just like we all know Clinton is not a racist and does not actually want someone to knock off her rival.
They have both made word slips or inappropriate comments during this campaign (I would like to see anyone here cover the schedules they have faced and NOT make some wording errors) and when people bring them up it just makes me think of all the things the other candidate has said to piss me off.
In other words you are hurting Clinton's image every time you use those tactics. Just like if I went around making references to white people in every post the first thought that would go through your mind would probably be "sweetie".
May 29, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has made two gaffes, sweetie and bitter. Hillary has made enough to lose the nomination.
May 29, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about this guys!!!Suppose they say the Candidate in the future that wins a state will get all that states SD.Oh! the states Delegates will still be awarded proportinally but if Candidate X wins state Y he gets all that states SD!!!???So what do you think????
May 29, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that makes the delegates a lot less than "super".
Though combining winner-take-all and proportional delegate allocation is an interesting idea.
May 29, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only a few more days to endure You-Know-Her and her ever-shifting rationales for why coming in second really means that she has "won."
Unfortunately for You-Know-Her's convoluted illogic, even if she succeeded in coming in first because of one discredited scam or another, that would only knock Senator Obama down into second place -- which would prove that he had "won."
Who in their right mind would ever want to come in first place if that only means "losing"?
No wonder so many millions of educated foreigners consider America and its lunatic "government" too stupid to stipulate.
May 29, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can the delegates, pledged or super, change their minds all the way up to and at the convention? I ask, because I don't see their voting for Hillary unless they change their minds due to some summer surprise. Barack hasn't been vetted by the press. If anything really bad surfaces (and I think something will), does anyone here think the delegates will switch their pledges/votes? If so, what's the process for that? Can it only happen AT the convention? Just asking.
May 29, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If anything bad really surfaces, chances are it will sink Hillary. She's shown time and again that she's more than capable of unforced errors.
May 29, 2008 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, Hillary Clinton, your future president, thank you for this endorsement.
Leading the cute bunny vote, the white cute bunny vote!
Leading the popular vote against Senator Uncommitted!
Leading you all!
Much Love,
Hillary.
May 29, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
hmm, I remember another person who courts awarded an election victory to. How did that work out?
May 29, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
With, of course the minor detail of the precedent it establishes: Break the rules, and we will slap your wrist.
At the same time, it can be said that MI and FL have been punished enough, and what state in the future would want to be so embarrassed? (Don't answer that question!)
May 29, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
MI has done this before and will do it again. The RBC's decision will not change that whatever they decide.
May 29, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was supposed to be a response to Minordomo's 50% suggestion, but doesn't show up that way on my screen.
May 29, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why, exactly, would the Clintons care about future of the Democratic party and its policies and procedures? I would think future turmoil among Democrats would only benefit the new party that is slouching toward Bethlehem to be born, a organization known as the:
America for Clinton Party
May 29, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's been a punishment all right... but to whom and why do ALL of us have to suffer?
We could come up with some really bad sport analogy about changing the rules at the end game thereby possibly changing who won the game... who then was punished? the team owners, manager, players, or fans? Everyone? Would you purchase tickets for future games if you knew the rules could change midstream? I wouldn't.
May 29, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your posts have the remarkable ability to induce alpha waves.
May 29, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oddly, whenever I read one of your posts, I get a horrible case of the farts.
May 29, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
May 29, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it would be the fairest way, since that is how the rules were before this even came up, but it would still give Hillary an excuse to take it to the convention (as if she needed a legitimate excuse anyway).
How about this?
Seat all the delegates as they voted and allow the ones in Michigan who voted "no preference" say who they want. If Hillary, fine. If Obama, fine too. No disenfranchisement.
BUT! No Super Delegates from either states can be counted. That is a fitting punishment since it was they who participated in changing the dates in the first place. The punishment will not be against the voters, who had no choice in this.
EXCEPT for those voters who stayed home rather than voting in a primary that they had been told would not count. THAT horse is so far out of the barn that it is too late to do anything about it. The advantage is that it Would send a message to all states about how to behave next time, which IS important!
May 29, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Five states moved their dates but only 2 lose their votes. It kind of speaks for itself. Hello, 48 state strategy...
May 29, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have posted this over & over and it has been thoroughly shown to be a false arguent. Why don't you stop it? Oh, that's right. It is an argument for Hillary, so it doesn't have to be true or even sensible!
May 29, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that this was the day, in 1942, that Bing Crosby, the Ken Darby Singers and the John Scott Trotter Orchestra recorded Irving Berlin's "White Christmas", the best-selling Christmas album in history, for Decca Records in Los Angeles. It's also the day that the Republic of Prekmurje founded, in 1919.
I just automatically think of May 29 as "White Christmas in Prekmurje Day", in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you. That's just how I remember it's May 29.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up.
May 29, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
hrebendorf: Strong points well made. And a tip-top number-one avatar.
May 29, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment