Clinton: Michigan, Florida Should Be Seated

Texas Monthly:

There's been a lot of talk about what your campaign would do should it get to the convention. Would you commit today to honoring the agreement made earlier not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations?

Let's talk about the agreement. The only agreement I entered into was not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It had nothing to do with not seating the delegates. I think that's an important distinction. I did not campaign--...

...I think it's important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC's decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat.

Read the whole story: Texas Monthly

Comments

[SDgirl]

She'd love to carry Texas, but because she's losing ground there with voters, they don't count all that much....so it's very important to seat the delegates in the states she won, one on name recognition and no obama campaigning and the other she was able to win against (not Obama), but uncommitted. She's already told everyone else in the country that their votes don't count and do not matter, so why stop now.

[TurnThePageGA]

I guess she is about to pull out of Texas and tell Obama to meet her in Ohio. Geeeeeeeeze.

[moevaughn]

None of the candidates campaigned in FL or MI. (Although O inadvertantly ran a TV ad in FL.) It was Obama's own choice to remove his name from MI's ballot. Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel all left their names on MI ballot, because every voter in this country matters.

[Thatcher]

And AFSCME sent mail into FL and MI for Clinton. She didn't campaign - but AFSCME did, on her behalf.

[jfoxx]

I agree. These states were warned by the DNC not to move their primaries, and they did it anyway. If the DNC caves here, next election will be anything-goes.

[Ping]

Of course that raises the issue of whether the DNC can dictate to the states when they can have their elections. But we'll save that argument for later, maybe next month.

[Liam]

Certainly they can. Remember that this isn't an election, it's a primary. That's why the different parties have different number of delegates in different states, have primaries on different days in some states, have different rules for the caucuses and primaries in some states, why the Dems can have "Superdelegates" while the Reps don't, etc.

As much as we think of this as a national election, these primaries are the parties choosing their nominee. If they really wanted to, they could have a closed door session in a smoke filled back room and just declare a candidate. Nothing says that's the candidate anyone has to vote for in the election, it's no different than MoveOn.org selecting which candidate to endorse, essentially. This is just the Democratic Party choosing which candidate to endorse.

So absolutely they CAN do it. And more importantly, they DID do it, and so while it may not be fair to the residents of those states to not have their votes in the primary counted, there's really no fair solution, because the primaries that WERE held were not the primaries that would have been held had the punitive measures not been put into place.

Liam.

[Thatcher]

The courts have sided with the National Parties on the rules for the contests to select a presidential nominee. The precedence is in the books.

That being said - the DNC isn't dictating the state governments when they can have elections. However, since the DNC has power to decide the process (per the Supreme Court and lower courts) - they can state what they will count as a proper contest for the nomination.

The state parties know that and the Florida Dems even talked in 2007 about the idea of a caucus or other option because of the Jan 29 date. Florida Democratic Party knew then, and know now, that they are in the wrong on this.

[savertime]

The time to fight for the disenfranchised voters of Michigan and Florida or The DNCs authority was at the time the DNC made the decision on the states for moving their primary dates. All of the candidates pledged to abide by the DNC decision.

I guess Hillary thought her inevitability was all she would need to win the nomination. Now, any idea of changing the rules in the middle of the primary season and reneging on her earlier pledge smells of a lack of integrity. Where is her and sense of fair play? Desperation is now the name of the game, and winning trumps character and integrity.

[Liam]

No, they shouldn't, for the simple reason that that was the rules as of when those contests happened.

There's simply no way of knowing how those primaries would have come out if everyone had been on all of the ballots and had campaigned on an equal footing.

So it's just more dirty politicking for Clinton to put her name on a ballot no one else put their name on and then try to claim delegates which everyone had been told were off limits before they were even committed.

Liam.

[moevaughn]

Please keep your facts straight. Clinton, Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich all had their names on the MI ballot. It was Obama's own choice to remove his. As far as campaigning on equal footing, neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned in either FL or MI. (although O inadvertantly ran a TV ad for himself in FL during the Superbowl.)

[Liam]

Obama and Edwards both removed their names. I'm not concerned with the lesser candidates because frankly, none of them ever really had a chance to win. It was only ever Clinton, Obama and Edwards that had any real chance.


So to have Clinton running without the two major opponents who could have taken any significant votes from her makes the results questionable.


I mean, c'mon, Mike Gravel could run as the only man on the Democratic ticket and he probably wouldn't pull more than 2-3% of the vote with no other options available!


I stand by my original statement. Both states were warned (so it's not like they had no idea this was coming), both states ignored the warning, both were told they were being punished for disobeying. Clinton left her name on the ballot when the other two major candidates removed theirs. Leaving a result that's highly questionable.


Look, I don't object to FL or MI counting... just have them redo their primaries in accordance with the rules and with everyone (or everyone surviving) on the ballot. If Mrs. Clinton wins fairly, give her the delegates. If Mr. Obama wins, give HIM the delegates. But I still believe that Obama stayed closer to the intent of the Democratic Party and he should not be penalized for it. Mrs. Clinton is not being penalized because she didn't win the delegates in a fair fights... and knew going into those primaries that they weren't going to count.


Liam.

[KaAp]

He removed his name from the Michigan primary as did Edwards to comply with DNC rules ... he was not going to go against the party ...
In Florida it is legally very difficult to remove your name ...
So, why should Obama be penalized for complying with the rules of the Democratic party? It was not choice it was doing what the Democratic party wanted ---
Why don't you get your facts straight