McAuliffe Has Flip-Flopped On Counting Florida, Michigan

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - McAuliffe Has Flip-Flopped On Counting Florida, Michigan stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 04-27-08 02:44 PM   |   Updated: 05- 5-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Chris And Terry

If you cast your mind back to the evening of the Pennsylvania primary, you'll remember that the Clinton campaign began to develop a pretext for the superdelegates to rubberstamp in support of her candidacy: namely, that she was winning in the popular vote. That case is not without a certain amount of speciousness (at the moment, it requires one to count Florida and Michigan, and accept the premise that NOBODY in Michigan would vote for Obama), but it's her best case to make, so she might as well give it a try.

That said, she might be well-served if some of her supporters refrained from doing the same. Perhaps you remember this moment from that evening, where former DNC Chair and Fox News Cheerleader Terry McAuliffe told Chris Matthews that he "always" counts the votes from Florida, and that Michigan counts among her big wins.

[WATCH.]

As it turns out, McAuliffe's definition of the word "always" is pretty unconventional, for it was not too long ago, he thought something entirely different. In fact, the entirely different thought he thought was something he thought so hard that he even put in a book of his other thoughts, entitled What A Party! And what a party it was! When Michigan Senator Carl Levin wanted to move up the Michigan primary in 2004, McAuliffe shot him down with swagger, belittlement, and the sorts of words he's not using these days, now that he finds himself on the other side of the fence. Via Mark Nickolas' well-chosen excerpt:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.


"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

That's on page 325, by the way, so, if you want a refund, that's the page you want to tear out and send to McAuliffe.

If you cast your mind back to the evening of the Pennsylvania primary, you'll remember that the Clinton campaign began to develop a pretext for the superdelegates to rubberstamp in support of her cand...
If you cast your mind back to the evening of the Pennsylvania primary, you'll remember that the Clinton campaign began to develop a pretext for the superdelegates to rubberstamp in support of her cand...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
62
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

Regarding Florida, I don't know if people remember but there were two other people on the ballot along with Clinton and Obama. They were Edwards and Kucinich and together they garnered about 260,000 votes. Doesn't this skew the results somewhat and put into question that Clinton feels entitled to take a win in this state?

Not to mention, Obama didn't even campaign there. If he had, he likely would have eroded her lead significantly like he has done in other states known to be her strongholds. Oh, and 9.3% is not a landslide!

Buh Bye Clintons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:30 PM on 04/27/2008
- cmeans29 I'm a Fan of cmeans29 3 fans permalink

There's a postion available for Terry on SNL. What a joke!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:17 PM on 04/27/2008
- kristin I'm a Fan of kristin 7 fans permalink

Hillary wants to disenfranchise 2 million voters in Florida and Michigan by having the original elections count.

"I didn't understand why Sen. Obama and some of his supporters wanted to prevent you and other states from actually being able to vote," she said on a Wilmington, North Carolina station.” That is both a lie and hypocrisy.

“In a study, Wharton School Assistant Prof. Gregory Nini and liberal author Glenn Hurowitz try to figure that out, based on voter turnout in other states. Their conclusion: Based on a statistical comparison with turnout in other states’ primaries, it appears that roughly two million more people would have voted in Florida and Michigan had they expected their delegates to be seated.”

“Although the Democratic turnout rate was impressive in Florida and Michigan, it was not nearly as high as it has been in other primaries so far. ... In many other states, Democratic voters outnumbered Republican voters by at least 3 to 2. Simply stated, in states where Democratic voters expected their delegates to count and the candidates spent time and money campaigning, Democratic turnout has vastly exceeded Republican turnout. The fact that Republicans outnumbered Democrats in Florida and Michigan suggests that many would-be Democratic voters in those states chose not to vote at a much higher rate than in other states.”

from : Who Didn't Vote in the Florida and Michigan Democratic Primaries? - Swampland - TIME

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:21 PM on 04/27/2008
- deb813 I'm a Fan of deb813 5 fans permalink

Another narrative(a very important narrative really) which the media doesn't seem to want to address. It's not only the dirty tactics against Obama but there has been a consistent effort to marginalize states, caucuses, certain types of voters and important demographics in the country. there is nothing beyond the blue state strategy and frankly with all of the demographics and voters they have marginalized I'm not even sure the Clinton's can win the Blue states.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 04/27/2008
- ldsrapha I'm a Fan of ldsrapha 2 fans permalink

Yes, didn't you know Hillary is running to be President of the Swing States? Everyone else can go it on their own. They are the ONLY ones that matter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:46 PM on 04/27/2008

..and we want to trust her with the Constitution?
...pheww we are in trouble.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 04/27/2008

This whole debate about perceptions is crazy. I really think that the surrogates for Obama like Tom Daschle and Bill Bradley need to take their head out of the clouds of hope and change and get to accurately framing what is happening in these contests.

If Clinton wins Indiana, the Clinton campaign is going to text every Blackberry the press owns and they're going to say "Barack Obama cannot win over the white middle class blue collar worker". This simply isn't the truth.

The truth of the matter is is that campaigning with Evan Bayh is a HUGE advantage. She has him out on the stump looking like he is going to be her choice for V.P. So, the real explanation for how well she is running in Indiana is that people are voting for Bayh. They're not voting against Obama as much as they are voting for the home town guy.

Someone from the Obama campaign needs to articulate this.

I also get the sense that McCain has two options for a running mate: Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Texas and Charlie Crist from Florida. My guess is that he will choose Hutchinson. She will pick up Clinton's disgruntled female moderates and appeal to conservatives.

I'm hoping that Obama selects Kansas Governor Sebelius. She competes for the female vote and also has a record of working with Republicans.

Obama should push the message of change while Daschle and Bradley defend and frame the comments made by the Clinton campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 04/27/2008

Also, Sebelius is Catholic, a demographic that Clinton has been winning.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 04/27/2008
- OlskoolDem I'm a Fan of OlskoolDem 3 fans permalink

I think that Hillary has put the kbash on a woman VP / President ever again or at least till all of the posters have gone on to the other side of the rainbow.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 04/27/2008

Great post. I agree with most of what you said. However, if Clinton eeks out a win in Indiana, say by 5 pts. or less, what will that prove? If she wins big, she's got ammo. Other than that, she will have to hope that exit polls show that Obama hasn't done any better among blue collar white voters. I'm hoping that doesn't happen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 04/27/2008

You forgot to mention Bill Clinton. He's also campaigning for her. Where would she be without him?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:19 AM on 04/28/2008

At this point, rationality is not the reason that people are voting for Hillary.
The people that are supporting Hillary are doing so because she symbolizes somthing to them. (what that something is I don't know)But, to them, it doesn't matter that she lies about: being under snipper fire in Bosnia, lies about Michigan not counting then wants to them to count, insinuates that Obama is a muslim on 60 minutes, speaks in a higher regard for McCain than Obama, states that Obama was complaining about the debates after she complained to Tim Russert, Lies about her support for NAFTA, actually I think I'm limited on the amount of words I can write in this post, otherwise I would be writing for days about Hillary Lies. The bottom line is that her devoted following don't care about character in their leaders. So they will continue to vote for her.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:34 PM on 04/27/2008
- Daly I'm a Fan of Daly 19 fans permalink

I think you are right! They (I call them rear view looking supporters) are clinging to the good ole days when the economy was better and they are not learnt enough to know that the POTUS has very little leverage with even the price of gas.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 PM on 04/27/2008

Why don't any of the talking heads who have had McAuliffe on in the last week when he has been spouting this popular vote crap (crap meaning primarily counting the Michigan votes, at LEAST) confront him with his own WRITTEN words like this?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:25 PM on 04/27/2008
photo

The media get more pathetic every day.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 PM on 04/27/2008
- shubes61 I'm a Fan of shubes61 18 fans permalink

Ah, more expedient rule-changing.

Another example that shows how much we can
trust these people to abide by the agreed-upon
rules of, say, a moderator-free debate.

Their "agreements" are meaningless.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 04/27/2008

Go to the DNC site, read the memo's, pour over the rules, get the facts.

There's nothing in the party rules that even suggests candidates need to agree on whether to count the votes from states violating party rules. It's not their call. But, states, with total candidate approval, may hold additional elections if the first one was nullified. The point of the DNC nullifying the entire electoral process of both states was so that caucusing or revoting could occur later as a remedial option while slapping down errant state party heads. It has proved to be a bad decision.

Several states violated the early voting rules, but only two got punished. Had the nominating committee "severely reduced" the count, say to half, an option the republicans used to punish their own members in these very same states for the exact same reasons, then the reduced count would stand regardless of what the candidates desired. This uneven handling of the issue will come back to haunt the DNC.

There is also no splitting of the difference by proportioning delegates equally just to help one or the other reach the number of required delegates to win the nomination. This is neither fair nor legal.

Seeing this issue through the lens of who we want to win is shortchanging our democratic process. Because those with the media resources are not truly investigating this critical issue, it is left primarily up to bloggers, or, maybe as many would prefer, to no one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 04/27/2008
- shubes61 I'm a Fan of shubes61 18 fans permalink

I was commenting on the above quote from McAuliffe's book:

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. THE RULES ARE THE RULES (emphasis added). If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

It seems that McAuliffe's determination that "THE RULES ARE THE RULES" doesn't apply now.

Granted, the DNC is punishing Florida and Michigan by not seating ALL their delegates (not just 50% like in 2004). But that was the decision of the DNC.

When I heard back in November about Florida and Michigan, I thought, "No one is having a problem with this?" But I don't remember hearing anyone complain on the MSM about it, so I figured if that's what the DNC decided, that's it.

In the spirit of fairness, I HAVE downloaded the 26-page pdf of the DNCs charter, and will read through its rules and bylaws for appropriate sections. (I don't expect to get through it tonight, because I worked late and I'm tired.)

But here is an article describing how Senator Clinton seemed okay with the DNC's decision in the fall, and why it seems suspicious that she's suddenly so offended that Florida and Michigan's votes aren't counting now.

http://www.slate.com/id/2188985/pagenum/all/#page_start

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 PM on 04/28/2008
- zendem1 I'm a Fan of zendem1 115 fans permalink

Terry mcauliffe is a liar.

He is a paid liar.

He has always been a liar.

He always will be a liar.

He's the Clinton's chief swill merchant.

He lies so much and so often that he has no idea what the truth is anymore.

Because of all of the above, it's easy to see why the Clintons love him so much.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:15 PM on 04/27/2008
- CTmom13 I'm a Fan of CTmom13 9 fans permalink

He works for QUEEN LIAR herself!!! What do you expect

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:08 PM on 04/27/2008
- seenitall I'm a Fan of seenitall 9 fans permalink
photo

I think this is why good people are leaving the Clinton camp. Unfortunately, they're left with these slobbering hounds to wreak havoc for her.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:04 PM on 04/27/2008
- CeeLee I'm a Fan of CeeLee 12 fans permalink
photo

LYING was what McAuilffe did as the last ineffective head of the DNC. Now he is/was one the chief engineers of making HRC's bid to be QUEEN in the white house "inevitable". That is why the primaries were front loaded in the first place. HRC according to his and Bill Clinton's plan would have crowned HILLARY by Feb 5th. That is why she didn't care that Michigan and Florida lost their delegates by being defiant with the Party rules. She figured she wouldn't need them to be crowned QUEEN.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:02 PM on 04/27/2008

Hilly's whole campaign is in shreds. I mean, where is the credibility and why is MSM perpetuating this farce? It seems like everything they do, every statement that they make ends up being contradictory. And the worst part of all is that they're being contradicted by their own words, actions and video clips.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:02 PM on 04/27/2008

The media does not care if they print accuracte stories or not, they have no credibility. They just want to sell stories, papers, or whatever. What would happen if the msm did not write a story about Hillary or Bill for three days? The other candidates are not as newsworthy. There is more ourtrageous items from Bill or Hillary

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:18 PM on 04/27/2008

Obama is carrying this party...

Registering more voters
Raising more money
Cool and level headed approach
etc
etc
etc

And we have 300 some odd Super delegates that can't make up their mind because they are SPINELESS wimps that can't take a stand. I respect any Super that has supported HRC although I do not agree at least they have made up their mind...in a few cases have publicly changed their mind...and these 300 can't speak up..when it is clear HRC is done by the numbers. And "stealing" the nomination will destroy the party for decades...what exactly is there to think more about?

I can't stand a punk!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:01 PM on 04/27/2008

Their mindset is that they want to stand behind who is more "electable". If that aint a bunch of manure. Don't they see that the Repubs will shred this woman with all the evidence that is coming out against her on a daily basis? There is too much negative for her to possibly have a chance to win against McBush, especially with all of the Democrats that she is turning away. At this point she seems to be unelectable to me, wonder why they can't see it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:05 PM on 04/27/2008
- abigail1 I'm a Fan of abigail1 36 fans permalink

i do not understand why they are trying to make this argument! Won't it just make the fact that if/when Obama wins big in North Carolina all her gains in PA will be undone bigger news? It just seems so short sighted, although that is not surprising for the Clinton campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 04/27/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect