« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary begging supporters to contact DNC--the rest of us better respond
Welp, Hillary's at it again. A new round of email pleas came out today, urging her supporters to contact the DNC to make the "right" decision about MI and FL. I am sure she'll get plenty of sympathetic folks who care about Clintonocracy to respond, so I think it's important for the rest of us to weigh in ASAP. I did not follow the link in Hillary's email, for fear it would somehow be counted as a vote of support (one can't be too careful these days), but the DNC contact link is http://www.democrats.org/contact.html
Thanks for being the voice of reason.
Advertisement
Comments (40)
Also, by way of preemptive response, MI and FL are clearly a special case. Aside from the debate about whether other states "broke the rules" (which none did in the way of MI and FL), there is the very important issue of whether fair contests were run in those other states, which they were. What makes MI and FL so inherently unfair is that Hillary broke the rules she agreed to -- not only did the states not comply, the candidate did not either. Big difference here.
May 17, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's debatable as to whether Hillary broke the rules, and, in fact, there are those who claim Obama broke them in FL by not preventing his national spot from running there.
Regardless, what's not debatable is that in Michigan, Obama's name was not even on the ballot because he was following the spirit of the rules as well as the letter. (Again, I'm sidestepping the issue of whether or not their pledge required them to take their name off the ballot.) Another, equally pernicious problem, that applies to both states, is that on the day of the primary the general understanding is that the delegates from those states would not be seated. That really encourages people to stay home, I would think. An even bigger problem arises in FL where on the day of (or maybe it was the day before) the primary, Clinton suddenly decides that those delegates should be seated. So, if you're a big Clinton supporter, you're going to show solidarity by showing up and voting, but if you're a big Obama supporter, you could show solidarity by not voting—since he didn't think those delegates should be seated.
So, there are big problems involved in seating these delegates in a fair fashion. Ideally, party officials at the state and national level (including Obama and Hillary) would've been doing their best to resolve this before January. It didn't happen. I think the next best thing would've been to have a second primary. Also didn't happen. So, we are where we are. Not seating the delegates at all is an option, and furthermore is the option currently in the rules (as amended in 2007). However, that alienates voters from FL and MI, which is not going to help us in the general. Reverting back to the rules prior to the 2007 amendment, where FL and MI would be able to seat half of their delegates gives the semblance of following the rules as well as the semblance of the delegates counting. It's an awkward compromise, because neither would really be true. The rules aren't really being followed because we're changing the rules after the fact, even if it's to a prior set of rules. The delegates aren't really counting, because the only reason such a compromise could be readily agreed upon is that they're not going to change the final result (i.e., Obama would still win). No one would be thrilled with this, but hopefully no one would be too annoyed, either.
May 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truth be told, the Obama campaign was uninterested in resolving the FL/MI issue because it was in their short-term strategic interest that those states not be counted. There were 2 ass-kickings headed their way. It struck me as 'politics as usual' that all campaigns engage in. Not remarkable in any way other than it was PAU from a campaign that supposedly was above that sort of thing but it was no big deal.
Removing the name from the MI ballot was anything but following the spirit of the rules as well as the letter. The campaign simply didn't want to see another early headline showing "Clinton XX% - Obama X%" and the only way to avoid that was to take the name off of the ballot. The Michigan legislature considered legislation in advance of the primary to restore all names to the ballot but Obama and Edwards threatened to sue the state if their names were restored on the ballot. Plus there was the added bonus of claiming what a 'man of principle' he was while sucking up to the IA and NH voters, to preserve their privilege. This "...his name wasn't even on the ballot... gambit triggers my gag reflex each time I hear it. But again, MI was pretty much PAU.
The DNC decision, to not only strip all delegates from FL and MI but to prohibit campaigning in 2 important major states, is the stuff of fucking legend where stupidity is involved. I guess it's a 48 state strategy...ie throw away 2 major states to appease the egos of IA and NH. Unreal.
May 17, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we wouldn't have to worry about these two states, in the context of them being "swing states," if we elected our president based upon the popular vote of our citizens rather than on an outdated "winner take all" elector system. Our system is not a national election but a collection of fifty separate state contests.
I am ready for an election that doesn't revolve around only Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. I am ready for an election where the votes of Democrats in Mississippi and Texas actually count, and where the votes of Republicans in NY and California actually count.
Do we realize that about 90% of the arguments Hillary has made about her "electability" in this race would not even apply if we elected our President based on popular vote?
Support the National Popular Vote Initiative.
May 18, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, well, both states attempted the same "jump ahead" strategy in 2004 and then-DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe threatened to negate their votes. That time they backed down; this time they didn't. I'm sure it was the repeated attempts that drew more fire from the DNC than some other skippers.
OBTW: I live in Michigan. As for Obama "fearing" such a bad turnout here, consider the fact (and I know first hand it is a fact) that a great, great many of voters stayed home because they were assured this was an exercise in futility.
Then when the re-vote issue popped-up, Obama said, okay, let's toss out the previous vote, and re-vote. Clinton would have nothing to do with it. The votes that were cast were to stay (including "uncommitteds" and possible cross-over mischief voters (since they didn't have anyone to vote for). Sadly, I also know they exist. No. She would only allow those who failed to vote to "re" vote (actually just a "vote" if they did not vote before, right?).
It is actually Clinton who obstructed what might be the most fair suggestion (Obama's) — dump the non-election results and go for a Mulligan. Nobody disenfranchised, everybody really gets to say who they want to vote for.
From those facts, it begs the question about who is really afraid of the Big Bad Michigan electorate speaking with a full voice. Obama certainly wasn't, but Clinton refused to compromise (as she does to this day; she has rejected every proposal but her vote-as-it-stands outcome).
It reminds me a great deal of her willingness to compromise in so many other things, i.e., her universal health care plan of 93. If she had bent just a little bit (to voices from within her own party), we might not be talking about the need for such health care 25 years later.
May 18, 2008 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you there, I voted Kucinich just because I"ve only been voting for a few years and I like doing it, otherwise I got the sense from the poiticians in Lansing that I should just stay home.
Though when I checked my email that night I saw all the edwards and obama kids emailng college dems and crapping their pants trying to get everyone to voted uncommitted, and I hoped something wouldn't come up later on.
May 18, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Young Voters Turn Out in Michigan Primary
May 18, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another, equally pernicious problem, that applies to both states, is that on the day of the primary the general understanding is that the delegates from those states would not be seated. That really encourages people to stay home, I would think.
Didn't FL have a record turnout?
May 17, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Hillary was arguing vociferously that their vote should count no doubt helped turn out her base in record numbers. However, if the percentage of people showed up to vote in FL as in states similar to FL, you could expect an additional 800,000 people to have voted. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a majority of those 800,000 people would've been Obama supporters, for the reasons previously given.
May 18, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's not a stretch for you, Ben, but it is for me. Constructing "maybes" is easy. Try this...as you noted earlier, Obama was the only candidate that had paid adverts run in FL pre-primary. 'Maybe' that boosted his turnout.
Florida Youth Voter Turnout Triples
May 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am deeply concerned about the situation with the delegates in MI and FL. Hillary Clinton is working very hard to have her supporters "make every vote count," but she is blantantly disregarding all those voters who did not have a chance to vote for Barack Obama.
Clearly, when a candidate willfully breaks the rules she agreed to, she should not be rewarded with the support of the DNC. This goes beyong the mistake of these two states--it encompasses a level of dishonesty and treachery within the democratic party.
Please make a decision that will not favor either candidate, and PLEASE make it clear that this is NOT an issue of discounting votes--it actually is an issue of running fair and equal elections.
Thank you,
May 17, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
...all those voters who did not have a chance to vote for Barack Obama.
See the above post please.
May 17, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
They (Edwards, Biden, Obama, et al) tried to have their names removed from the Florida ballots as well but were told by they were too late.
The reason was pretty simple. Since it was early in the election and all candidates agreed to not campaign in those states, there was the likely expectation that national name recognition would have an undue influence.
After all, that was in that now archaeological epoch when Clinton was the only name talked about in the MSM — back when she was invincible, correct? Results would have no consequence greater than a any other popularity vote like king or queen of the prom, not based on any familiarity with issues without reasonable campaigning.
So, of course votes in those state would favor Clinton, and of course they would have nothing to do with electability in fall.
And the thing about him running national campaign ads that happened to be viewed in Florida? First: Too bad. No broken rules. The individual stations in the states could have chosen a blackout if they felt it was unfair. Second: The choice to run those ads was made after the Clinton camp leaked that HRC would be making a campaign "victory" speech after the polls closed and the count was mostly tabulated.
So, no rules broken all the way around, though the spirit of their mutual pledges had already been breached. Just "fair" political gaming on both sides I guess.
May 18, 2008 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I said in the previous comment "The choice to run those ads was made after the Clinton camp leaked that HRC would be making a campaign "victory" speech after the polls closed and the count was mostly tabulated." What I meant to say was "The choice to run those ads was made after the Clinton camp leaked that HRC would be making a campaign "victory" speech in Florida after the polls closed and the count was mostly tabulated."
May 18, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has no authority over the state legislature of these two states, nor the Rules Committee nor the DNC.
She knows better.
May 17, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the authority. She is hoping to create the impression of voter backlash.
May 17, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Impression or delusion?
May 17, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another good link to contact the delegates here:
https://www.lobbydelegates.com/default.aspx
May 17, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Done! Thanks for the reminder and the kick in the behind.
May 17, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you just have a birthday? Need to get that name up to date 58andFemale.
May 17, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link, Liora. Glad I got that off my chest!
May 17, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary's actually been doing a good job the last few days--responding to McCain vehemently, not attacking Obama anymore, and really just talking issues and policy.
May 17, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's not just talking issues and policy.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10420.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/17/201822/559/46/517625
May 17, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I take it back. Damn, that's depressing.
May 17, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been commenting for two months now that appears as likely a strategy as any other — except that when you consider it, then all of her tactics, goal post shifting, changes of position, saying McCain was a better choice than Obama after her for two months (I don't care if she recants now; she is a lawyer and is very familiar with the tactic that one can not "unring the bell.")
Of course, I'm sure those were viewed by "reasonable" readers as crackpot assertions, especially when I further suggest I would not be surprised to see her switch parties to make that run in 2012.
Why? Because then her buddying-up to Mellon-Scaife, receiving campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch, and belonging for 15-16 years to the neocon Christian cult The Fellowship/The Family (they go by both names) all suddenly make sense too. (If you don't click: Other Family members are John Ashcroft, Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, and George "Macacca" Allen, to name a few... .)
May 18, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember when you contact the powers that be, to remind tham there are a few hundred thousand Obama supporters in Michigan who never got the chance to vote.
Can we count them too?
The Hillcamp doesn't even consider them real, they are like a ghost to them.
May 17, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is another post circulating with some brilliant quotes from Terry McAuliffe, both in this primary season and recalling his days with the DNC, during which time (according to himself) he swore up and down that MI should never be allowed to move up its primary--and threatened not to seat their delegates. (See "Hypocrisy? Clinton changes her tune...")
May 17, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Hillary is so good at playing the victim card, and she is furiously pretending that she is being a 'fighter' for the poor victimized voters in MI and FL. I agree that the losers in this whole mess are the voters in those two states, but it was the very party leaders in FL and MI who victimized their states' voters.
Those party leaders were told last August and September of 2007 what the punishment would be should they go ahead to hold early elections thereby breaching the very agreement they had months earlier made with respect to the calendar. In MI, the Democratic governor [a Hillary supporter] was blatant and defiant in signing into law an early primary date. In FL, the entire Democratic state congresspersons except two voted for a bill to move up a primary date, which bill was introduced by a Dem!
It is deceitful of Clinton to ask that the DNC come up with a complete reversal of their warning last year, and it is deceitful for her to pretend that the DNC or the Obama campaign should have responsibility for this situation. Anyone else notice that Clinton hasn't uttered a single admonishing word about the agreement breaching behavior of the party leaders in those two states, or about what havoc their behavior wrecked on the primary process, let alone their own in-state voters? Those party leaders, of course, are the very ones Hillary hopes to seat as super delegates in her column.
May 17, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
She said it was a problem way last summer to disenfranchise these states.
May 18, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you read my blog, you will see what I actually got from the Clinton Campaign and my personal note to the DNC. I am a elected pledged delegate from the State of Alabama, a state that did abide by the rules. Though my note was brief, I wanted someone to know what I felt about this whole thing. As I said, it should be fair and unbiased. Not one-sided and biased, which is what Hillary is counting on.
May 18, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's "mostly dead." She can come back to life when she wholeheartedly starts backing Obama to help undo the damage she has done.
From Miracle Max (Billy Krystol) in "The Princess Bride:"
Max: "(She) probably owes you money...
It just so happens that your friend here is "mostly dead." there's a big difference between "mostly dead" and "all dead." Mostly dead (she's) slightly alive; All Dead, there's only one thing you can do."
"What's that?"
Max: "Go through his clothes and look for loose change."
You must take the Superdelegates that were holding out for fools. Their steady flow in support of Obama says more than anything else to the DNC and other Supers. Even pledged delegates are flipping for Obama. It's over. Calm down.
For goodness sake, Slate.com's Hillary Deathwatch had her at a whopping 1.7% chance of getting the nomination on Friday. Obama's not relaxing, he's moving forward, and the Democratic party is following him...against McCain. You should too.
http://www.slate.com/id/2191490/
May 18, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lets seat FL, Hillary wins FL with 50%, Obama wins by 33% but add Edwards 14% with his endorsement.
50%-47% will split the delegates.
and Michigan is not even going to count.
May 18, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
As to the outcome of the nomination, MI and FL don't count, won't count, can't count. The only way Obama wouldn't have the majority of the pledged delegates at the end of the contests (even if you include MI and FL and make the 'needed for a majority of pledged' and 'needed to clinch' numbers higher) is to count Clinton's MI delegates and give Obama 0 delegates because his name wasn't on the ballot -- which no one will agree to or seriously propose. If Obama is given the MI 'uncommitted' delegates, he still gets the majority of pledged delegates by June 1 or at the lastes June 3.
Those states will have no role in the decision-making(although they've managed to be major players in the speculation game, unfortunately). The goal for any 'decision' about them has to be political and hopefully with the aim of giving the most united Dem. effort toward November, while leaving some 'lesson' about future transgressions of this sort in subsequent primaries. Two options I see: (1) seat them with each delegate vote counting only .5 (50%). This is what the Republicans did with no major fuss from anyone. (2) seat them fully but make it clear that this would NOT have been the outcome if the 'extra' 50% impact would have made any difference.
In future years there will ideally be an overhaul of the Dem. primary system -- and if there isn't then any 'misbehaving' state will be reduced to 50%, with the candidates allowed to campaign in those states just as the Republicans permitted. That was the real source of he problem this year -- not allowing campaigning.
BTW, Obama didn't just 'decide' to make the regional cable TV buy that overlapped into Florida. He presented the problem to the DNC to ask if it would break the pledge; DNC deferred to the South Carolina Dem. party - the one most affected - and they said it was okay. As noted above, Clinton had *already* - on her own - announced that she was going to travel to Florida for a 'victory' speech and would fight for FL votes to count at the convention (that's not campaigning??) *and* I saw reported at the time, although haven't confirmed, once Obama got permission she also made a regional cable buy with the same overlap into Florida.
May 18, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, even if you seat MI and FL "as is" without giving either the Edwards' or uncommitted delegates to Obama, I believe he's still ahead. It's just that it arguably becomes competitive again. If he hadn't secured the majority of the superdelegates (so far), then it would've been a different story, of course.
May 18, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-wrong-abo.html
I believe that the question of the national ad buy that included Florida spots has been resolved. The Obama campaign asked the SC DNC for permission to run the ads. SC was the only one of the 4 states, that were party to the agreement, left to vote in their primary, so they were the ones to make the decision of whether the ads violated the pledge. The SC DNC gave the ok.
I don't think either Obama or Clinton failed to honor the pledge until after the Florida primary. Then, by calling for the results of the two primaries to be meaningful, I believe that HRC was the one violating the spirit of the pledge. It is easy to see why she did it. The states that could be mad had already voted, and the results of the two primaries made her look like a winner, to those that weren't paying attention. I support HRC, but not this crazy idea that MI and FL should be seated without penalty. There will be a resolution for this situation. Michigan looks to be moving to the Obama side. Florida may not, but I don't think it will have anything to do with the dem. delegates.
May 18, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-wrong-abo.html
I believe that the question of the national ad buy that included Florida spots has been resolved. The Obama campaign asked the SC DNC for permission to run the ads. SC was the only one of the 4 states, that were party to the agreement, left to vote in their primary, so they were the ones to make the decision of whether the ads violated the pledge. The SC DNC gave the ok.
I don't think either Obama or Clinton failed to honor the pledge until after the Florida primary. Then, by calling for the results of the two primaries to be meaningful, I believe that HRC was the one violating the spirit of the pledge. It is easy to see why she did it. The states that could be mad had already voted, and the results of the two primaries made her look like a winner, to those that weren't paying attention. I support HRC, but not this crazy idea that MI and FL should be seated without penalty. There will be a resolution for this situation. Michigan looks to be moving to the Obama side. Florida may not, but I don't think it will have anything to do with the dem. delegates.
May 18, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has it even occurred to anybody that Hillary's real reason for not removing her name from the ballot in MI is because she wanted those states to vote early knowing she had an electoral advantage? The earlier those states voted the more name recognition would play a role in the outcome... so she had planned all along to try to grab those delegates if needed. She was also counting on the psychological effect of those wins to help her do better in the following races and Super Tuesday. I am sure she planned to argue this all along... except that now it seems like her next to last gambit.
May 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
...because she wanted those states to vote early knowing she had an electoral advantage?
She didn't control their legislatures so what difference does it make 'what she wanted'? She was running strongly in those 2 states. Assume Barry was winning both at that time. WWBS? 'Throw 'em out because I'm a man of principle'?
May 18, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for posting that link. I e-mailed the DNC and demanded that they allow the votes of Michigan and Florida to count. I know. I know. That's against the rules. But I was thinking how all those punished Democrats would feel, and how good it would be for the Democratic Party not to lose two essential swing states in November. Please forgive my shortsightedness.
May 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Howard Dean has been saying for weeks that the MI and FL delegates will be seated, and I expect that Clinton's "wins" in both states will be acknowledged in some way (though not with Obama getting zero delegates from MI).
I think a back room deal will be reached. Clinton will agree not to contest the nomination all the way to the convention in exchange for MI and FL delegates getting seated.
That gives her a victory to go out on in the sense that she's successfully championed the cause of the Democratic voters in MI and FL perhaps seeking to bolster her position in the Democratic hierarchy even as Obama's people begin to take control in the run up to the election.
May 18, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment