« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Bonoir was wrong advocate for Obama
Compared to a near pitch perfect performance by Gov. Blanchard, Bonior came off like an outclassed presenter at a high school debate... twitchy and unconvincing. A 50/50 split was an ambitious position to begin with, but he offered NONE of the most compelling rationales for the "invalidation" of the MI vote.
To wit:
First, the agreed upon pledge read "campaign OR PARTICIPATE"-- a major distinction that escaped mention. How can one claim she did not participate in an election where she was the only major candidate? Clinton DID NOT COMPLY WITH HER OWN PLEDGE, all the while commenting that the votes would not count.
Second, there is ample precedent of Dem candidates removing their names from Michigan ballots. In fact, Michigan has been forced to reset their primary date into compliance due to lack of candidates--a point which defuses the idea that Obama et al engaged in a "flawed strategy" by removing their names.
Third, he did not forcefully present the most obvious contradiction of the Clinton position... that "rules" should not disenfranchise voters. What about the "rules" that disenfranchised the 30,000 voters who offered write-in votes but were denied because of Michigan's rules?
50/50 was an intellectually defensible argument, but rings hollow. By endorsing a 73/55 split out the gate, Obama would have won on style points while preserving the idea that Michigan's votes counted for something. Instead, 69/59 turns into a rallying cry for the convention and we are subjected to Ickes' bloviating speech about hijacking four measly delegates.
Obama won the day, but will have to do some MAJOR speechifying to defuse the animosity that Ickes ratcheted up. Here's hoping Clinton will help as eagerly as Blanchard promised she would.
Comments (16)
Glad you mentioned that candidates have taken their names of the ballot in previous primaries.
The Michigan primary was unsanctioned. I think if it was fair for Hillary to exercise her option to keep her name on the ballot, then it's just as fair for others to exercise their option to take it off.
June 1, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It is exceedingly disingenuous to claim that there are no rules or laws requiring removing one's name when they all signed a pledge to not participate in the election. Pretty easy to conclude that "not participating" means removing your name off the ballot.
June 1, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not "participating" strictly meant "not campaigning." This was made clear by Alexis Herman and others at the rules committee meeting yesterday.
In fact, if "not participating" had meant anything else, the DNC would have punished the candidates for it, as the DNC rules clearly state. How do I know this? I've read the rules. You can too on the DNC website.
There were certainly no laws requiring removing one's name from the ballot! You do know the difference between rules and laws, right? Don't forget all these people are lawyers.
June 1, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see anything in the rules or the memo that specifically equate "campaign" to "participate." There are explicit definitions of what campaigning includes, but "participate" is not so defined.
The words have very different meanings. It may be argued that campaigning is in and of itself participation in an election, even if one's name is not on the ballot. However, one can participate in an election without campaigning at all. To wit, Obama's name was submitted by persons other than himself. Had he note withdrawn, he would have been participating without campaigning.
With all due respect to Alexis Herman's clarification--four months later--at the meeting, precedent of candidate name removal carries a bit more force than your argument here.
June 1, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Relax,
50/50 was only a bargaining position. Obama is better served by the 69-59 allocation.
Had it been 50-50, the Clinton camp would have more fuel to fight.
June 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get that 50/50 was a bargaining position, but why not offer the additional four delegates and lose to drama of "disenfranchising" Hillary's MI voters? The real fight was seating the delegations at half votes. Once that was settled, he could concede the four delegates.
Obama's challenge right now is spin control and reconciliation. His strongest position for that task is to make tactical concessions. This was a chance for him to really reach out to Clinton die-hards.
If Obama had Blanchard on his side, I think the rhetoric would have been less vituperative.
June 1, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Chuck Todd, he had enough votes for a 50-50 split but just barely. He went with what the Michigan state party wanted because they were the ones issuing the challenge and would have taken it to the floor. The state party decided on the 69-59 split because they were trying to reflect the will of those who voted, the 30,000 that wrote someone in rather than vote uncommitted or for someone on the ballot, and those who didn't come to the polls because they knew it wouldn't matter. That's the solution the Michigan state party came up with but just to make Ickes quiet, it wouldn't be a bad idea to just give them the 4 delegates.
June 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. My point is that conceding to the party isn't as important as being perceived as "fair/honest/right" with the VOTERS (especially HRC supporters). In the end, it seems we are of one accord on giving the delegates "back."
June 1, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand what Michigan wanted. They wanted full seating with full votes. Apportionment was optional, but full seating/voting was not optional. Levin made it extremely clear.
The committee fucked Michigan.
June 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It would have been unfair to Florida if they had given Michigan full votes. They'll all be there now. Michigan and Florida will not contest the decision and take it to the credentials committee. Hillary's campaign can do it but they'd be arguing about four delegates that wouldn't really help them all that much anyway. So, that chapter is done.
June 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only someone who doesn't know the details of MI's case could say this. It didn't look to me like MI was happy with the decision. But maybe they'll come around.
Because there weren't revotes, the committee should have given full restoration and full votes and exacted a different punishment altogether.
June 1, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand MI's position (esp. in regards to the committee's "blind eye" ruling on NH). Levin and Blanchard made excellent appeals about FUTURE primary seasons and spreading the wealth in primary order. HOWEVER, MI has tried these reindeer games before... and been rebuked several times. Notwithstanding NH's jump from third to second, NH already had an exemption; MI did not.
At any rate, two wrongs don't make a right. MI violated the rules resulting in a highly flawed scenario. A 50% reduction in delegate voting power is a fair consequence (for Florida too). Incidentally, I think the broader implication is that their voices were heard on the broadest of possible political stages. It's hard to imagine a scenario where MI doesn't get a better seeding in the next primary season.
Finally, I will reiterate that the current order affords a tangible benefit in candidate selection... By seeding the early primaries in smaller states, a broader swath of candidates has a greater chance of spreading their message before a delegate avalanche dashes their prospects. I think it's fair to posit that Clinton's name recognition afforded her a clear advantage in early voting. Obama hit his stride after his fundraising and organizing machines hit their stride and got his message out to the citizens.
June 1, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say MI was "rebuked" when the DNC spent a year studying the issue of the diversity of early voting states and concluded that everything MI had been lobbying for for years was correct? Did you see Carl Levin's testimony? If you did, do you think he was lying in front of the very committee to whom he was appealing for a waiver? If you didn't see it, here's much of it summarized.
Levin was on the DNC committee that determined to open up the process by including additional early primaries/caucuses. The evidence that MI was not "rebuked" as you claim is that this year, two new states—NV and SC—were included in early voting before Super Tuesday. You'll note from my link that the DNC-sanctioned schedule shows NH going third.
Anyway, this discussion is veering into a reform debate, far afield from the title of your post, which I'd rather talk about. I thought Blanchard was a strong advocate for Clinton and Bonoir a weak advocate for Obama. Aside from the "wrong argument" standpoint, can you identify other reasons why Bonoir was not the best spokesperson for Obama?
June 1, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole thing was wrong.
The Obama campaing tried hard to avoid dwelling on things that would easily be turned around by Hillary.
June 1, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Worse than Ben Nelson on the other side? Don't think so- Nelson got all rattled when someone pointed out that Florida dems screwed it up for the voters at state level.
June 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that the Florida issue was all but wrapped up in the pre-dawn wrangling. The final vote was 27-0 for approval of the half-vote FL compromise.
Nelson was not as crucial as charting a good course of compromise in MI. And let's be clear, the argument that 100% of uncommitted votes were for Obama is tenuous at best. At this point in the race, there's no other reasonable place for the delegates to go, but seating all 55 for Obama is a concession for the Clinton team too.
Much better to have punctured their rhetoric with the facts from my original post and had another 27-0 vote for a 73-55 (half-vote) MI resolution.
June 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment