Thomas B. Edsall

BIO

Thomas B. Edsall

The Huffington Post

Opposition Grows To Clinton's Delegate Cause Celebre

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

May 22, 2008 05:03 AM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

About Thomas B. Edsall

Thomas B. Edsall is the political editor of the Huffington Post. He is also Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. From 1981 to 2006, he was a political reporter at the Washington Post. He is the author of Chain Reaction and Building Red America. Tom can be reached at edsall@huffingtonpost.com.


In a last ditch stand, Hillary Clinton is trying to turn the seating of the disputed Florida and Michigan delegations into a cause celebre, posing questions of equal justice and voting rights in anticipation of a May 31 meeting of the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Her call for the seating of all delegates picked in the two primaries conducted in violation of party rules faces growing opposition from two groups of committee members -- those loyal to Barack Obama, and those loyal to Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean. These two factions appear likely to produce a majority on the Rules Committee, thus spiking Clinton's so-called "nuclear option."

Reliable sources in the Clinton campaign, and others close to Democratic Party leaders, contend that progress is being made toward a compromise that would either seat the full Florida and Michigan delegations, giving each member a half a vote, or cut the size of each delegation in half.

Clinton supporters make up the third and largest block on the Rules committee, but they do not constitute a majority. A Huffington Post analysis of the allegiances of the 28 members of the Rules committee found that 13 have endorsed Clinton, eight are in the Obama camp, and seven have not publicly committed, although a number of them are believed to be in Obama's corner.

Since the Rules Committee last year voted against seating the Michigan and Florida delegations -- each state violated party rules by holding its primary before February 5 -- the Clinton campaign faces the daunting task of holding onto all 13 Clinton supporters, while gaining two votes from the ranks of those loyal to Dean or Obama.

Campaigning in Boca Raton, Florida, on Wednesday, Clinton -- who stands to gain 56 more delegates than Obama if Michigan and Florida are seated as presently constituted, but only 16 to 20 more delegates if the compromise seating plans are agreed to -- made her case in dramatic terms.

"[H]ere in America, unlike in many other nations, we are bound together, not by a single shared religion or cultural heritage, but by a shared set of ideas and ideals, a shared civic faith, that we are entitled to speak and worship freely, that we deserve equal justice under the law, that we have certain core rights that no government can abridge and these rights are rooted in and sustained by the principle that our founders set forth in the Declaration of Independence."

For Clinton, it is crucial to turn the issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations into a matter of moral and civic principle if she is to gain traction among the members of the Rules Committee.

"I believe that the decision our party faces is not just about the fate of these votes and the outcome of these primaries. It is about whether we will uphold our most fundamental values as Democrats and Americans," she told Boca Raton voters. "We carry on this cause for a simple reason, because we believe the outcome of our elections should be determined by the will of the people - nothing more, nothing less."

One knowledgeable source directly involved in the negotiations said the most likely first step to be taken by the Rules Committee on May 31 would be "to vote to cut the delegations in half with full votes" for each of the remaining delegates. Florida is then expected to ask the committee to modify its ruling "to allow all the delegates to go with a half vote each."

Harold Ickes, Clinton's chief negotiator on this issue and a member of the Rules Committee, said he is exploring various compromises, but he declined to provide specifics.

Even if the Clinton forces were to succeed in winning approval to seat the full Florida and Michigan delegations, the decision would be subject to review by the convention Credentials Committee, on which Obama supporters will have more members than Clinton, and then again on the convention floor in Denver in late August.

 
 

Comments
3078
Pending Comments
0

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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (34 pages total)

I still don't understand how this issue came to be framed as "the nuclear option". Who chose that title?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 AM on 05/27/2008

Well. You know what? This is exactly like the events in Florida in 2000. And is being replayed in the HBO movie Recount. It is as if hillary clinton said, "well, it worked last time, when bush stole the election. It will surely work again. Let's do it!" hillary says to Harold Ickes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 PM on 05/25/2008

It's sort of poetic justice. These states' pols egotistically wanted to game the system--and forfeited the pivotal role a late primary would have given them: weeks of 24/7 media exposure, influence in the administration, and power for their citizens.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:31 PM on 05/25/2008

There was a pre-arranged agreement to not count Florida and Michigan delegates by Clinton and Obama.

The states officials knowingly broke the rules.

Only, after finding herself behind in delegates, does Clinton try and rile up the Florida and Michigan voters to lay false claim that only her delegates should count.

No concern for the two states before, much drama and weeping now for them, especially since Hillary is losing the election.

Simple: Let the pledge and contract agreed upon prior to the primary campaigns, remain intact.

No one should be honored for dismissing or breaking the rules.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 PM on 05/25/2008

The woman has no shame, clearly has phycopathic ambition and is a liar.

This is what half of the Democrats want as a President?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 05/25/2008

Attention, everyone - Eddee49 claims below to be a 31 year old black man who doesn't like Obama because of his lies. He is clearly a Republican plant, or someone else with the motive to come on here, divide us and otherwise sow fear. If you review his other posts under his name, it is clear he's the one who is..........lying. Not only that, but he can't even do it very well. I suspect he's a white male in his forties, possibly a member of Limbaugh's Operation Chaos program, or just a plain right wing-nut.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 05/25/2008

This whole MI and FL issue is just another red herring to buy time to wait for a disaster to befall Obama. First, it was the Republican controlled state legislature who voted to move Florida's primary up, knowing it would disinfranchise the Democratic primary votes. I've always wondered how it is that the media, or at least this site, would not provide more focus on this issue.

Next, in MI, Obama removed himself from the ballot there out of respect for party rules. Hillary, for whatever reason, did not. So, if the MI delegates are seated as they stand, it would be patently unfair for Obama. The only way we could really seat MI would be to have a revote or even a firehouse caucus, which Clinton fears Obama would win.

Last, HRC didn't think these votes mattered back in January. It was only when she began to lose that she has now 'taken up this noble cause.' To me, such levels of pandering are right up there with the holiday gas tax, or even the practice of ancient Roman emperors, who would buy off an increasingly concerned populace by doling out money. Hillary is not fit to hold high office in the United States.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 05/25/2008

You left out that she agreed to the rules, and stated that "the votes will not count" - when she was convinced it was "her turn" and would be coronated.

Her spin and outright lies - "winning the popular vote" - NO SHE ISN'T! This is Alice in Wonderland, only with an evil twist - hoping for an assassination!

Nobody likes a sore loser. A diabolical sore loser. One who will divide and attack in the disbelief that she isn't the chosen one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 PM on 05/25/2008

Wow! Is it just HuffPo or is she the least photogenic person on the planet? You would think all this mugging for the camera would show her off as the pandering asshat she is. One of the biggest reasons I would never vote for her is that I would like to see the "Ugly American" stigma to be put on hold for at least one presidential term, and hopefully two.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 05/25/2008

Hey Hill'
Why would you Disenfranchise all the people who voted "uncommitted" in Michigan, most voted for Barack Obama as "uncommitted" they actually took the time to cast a for "uncommitted", What about them and what about not being able to count the total popular vote from Caucus"s !! If this is an example of how you play commander-in-chief by changing the rules during the process, you have failed!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 05/25/2008

Hey Hill,
Get out, please and thanks! Can you not see you are practically handing the election to Bush III who may choose G.I. Joe Lieberman as his running mate because SOMEONE has to whisper in his ear to correct all his mistakes, and G.I. Joe could get the Indies.

You cannot win. Sorry - you put up a good fight but now you are tilting at windmills. Why don't you let Senator Obama get on with the fight against McCain instead of making him waste money to fight you! The GOP has $40 mill to fight us. We have $4 mill because of you and your ego which won't let you stop. Of course, Mr. Attack Down who has toned it down somewhat is still pushing you because he wants to be the first Mr. First Husband. Finally, I am a white working women "of an age" who is, obviously, no longer supporting your efforts. I did til I learned about Obama and switched over. So you see, you do NOT have the support of this "sister" and I would be many more of us as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 05/25/2008

When you are the ONLY one on the ballot, asking to count the votes or it is disenfranchisement is akin to saying that the voters in the Stalinist USSR were fully franchised with stellar voting rights and privilidges, despite the fact that only Uncle Joe may have appeared on the ballot.

Hillary is advocating Soviet-style democracy for Michigan, plain and simple.

Maybe, with the Kennedys on her mind, she will get an inoperable brain tumor by June. We got a couple days left, and anything can happen, right Hillary?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 05/25/2008

HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL

By Jerry Zeifman
IN December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.

Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by as "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.

Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously agreed not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted and published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."


Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 05/25/2008

Link?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 05/25/2008

Well, you can read it from the horse's mouth at www.jzeifman.com/, and also from several other sites reporting this at: www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm, and foro.univision.com/univision/board/message?board.id=wqba&message.id=30643. But surely you are aware you could have found these links easily with a simple google search, as I did.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 05/25/2008

Yeah sorry. Or not so sorry actually, I was going to google it anyway but I think this info is important enough to be linked to. Zeifman's complete and damning article is at Accuracy in Media here: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 PM on 05/25/2008

Why are there negotiations? Why can't the DNC follow their own rules:
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number. Additional info:
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5465

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 AM on 05/25/2008

I do like the picture. I think the caption should be

" look, I can put both my thumbs up my bottom, and still shrill like a raving lunatic!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 AM on 05/25/2008

The DNC should have to fund revotes in Michigan and Florida as compensation for making up stupid, convoluted rules and crazy-ass processes.

One national primary election day. Every eligible voter gets one vote. Count. Done.

What -- too simple?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 AM on 05/25/2008

Nonsense. The rules were crystal clear, and the Florida state government and Florida state Democratic party willfully broke them. As this article mentions, Hillary has a plurality of supporters on the Rules committee. What this article *fails* to mention is that all of her supporters voted to punish Florida and Michigan in the first place. If she were actually concerned about the voters in those states, she would have made an issue about it last year. She didn't.

This isn't about fairness for the voters in Florida and Michigan, it's about Hillary trying to get an advantage by any (dishonest) means necessary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 AM on 05/25/2008

It can't be fair for the Michigan voters, as the other candidates pulled their names as per the rules, and she was the only one on the ballot!

Why is this little fact not getting mentioned near as much as it should?!??!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 PM on 05/25/2008

Right. She also keeps claiming to have won the popular vote all the time on tv and nobody ever corrects her. That darned sexist media!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 PM on 05/25/2008

The trouble with that idea is that if we had done that this cycle we'd all be stuck with Hillary Clinton right now because she had the most name recognition at the start of this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 AM on 05/25/2008

Picture a different scenario : Hillary Clinton is ahead in the delegate count, but Obama insists on staying in the race into June even though his chances of winning are slim. A reporter asks Obama why he is still staying in the race with these odds . Obama mentions that RFK was assassinated in June---Do you think the media would not have a feeding frenzy ? I thought CNN (The Clinton News Network) glossed over her assassination remark and gave her a free pass.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 PM on 05/24/2008

This morning on CNN's Reliable Sources Howard Kurtz questioned three white woman about the media's treatment of Sen. Clinton. Suddenly this is the most important issue of the day? It was as if Obama made some horrific sexist statement about her. No mention of her RFK assasination remarks. It was so strange, as if it never happened. Sorry, no matter how the media and her supporters try to trun the page the elephant remains in the room.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:23 PM on 05/25/2008

If the situations were reversed, Obama would have been told to GTFO after losing Super Tuesday followed by an 11 state blowout.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 AM on 05/25/2008

Get over it. She was trying to say the RFK had a substantial delegation going to Chicago (back then it was winner take all, and RFK was the delegate leader because of CA). It would be nice if people knew the history of the party and not get in a snit when someone is just trying to talk about historical precendents.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 AM on 05/25/2008

O'ReillySheSaid...now you presume to speak for Hillary Clinton? You don't know what she really meant.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 PM on 05/25/2008

What does that have to do with this blog post?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 AM on 05/25/2008

Why are Bill and Hillary sending all their people over to this blog?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 PM on 05/24/2008

i live in florida, and when it was announced that our vote would not count, i changed my affiliation from dem to independent. i am so mad at the state officials for doing what they knew was wrong and put us in this position. if they think that now all they have to do is go to court to change the rules, they better think again. im looking into a class action suit for all of us hwo were mislead and either didn't or couldn't vote, and there are tens of thousands of us. they better leave things as they are. to count votes or to seat deligates with what some are saying is an (election? and the will of the people? is a sad joke.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:51 PM on 05/24/2008

RPJ,

The Republican legislature moved the date. Please don't take their bait. I understand why Floridians and people in Michigan are mad. But Obama didn't have anything to do with the decision. More importantly, we simply cannot take four years of McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 PM on 05/24/2008

Yes, the Republicans in the state legislature voted to move the date - but so did the Democrats. The measure passed 37-2. It was supported by the state chair for the Democratic party. And moving the date was originally proposed by a Democrat.

Hillary said she agreed with the RNC's penalty against Florida because the state's Republicans made a choice to move the primary, against the established rules. But moving the date was completely supported by both parties. By Hillary's own reasoning, Florida's votes should not be counted. The same should go double for Michigan, as the state house is controlled by Democrats and the governor is a Democrat.

Hillary is full of crap.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 AM on 05/25/2008

Uberbah
I heard that it was a young Democrat in Florida named Jeremy Ring who first proposed the date change. More seasoned Democrats told him not to do it but he insisted. I also heard that he was/is an Obama supporter. Do you know anything about that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 AM on 05/26/2008

I AGREE WITH YOU AND I AM AN OBAMA SUPPORTER. THE CLINTON'S ARE USING EVERYTHING THEY CAN, WETHER LEGIT OR NOT. I USED TO BE A STAUNCH CLINTON SUPPORTER UNTIL THIS PRIMARY.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 PM on 05/24/2008

RPJ--Same here...my sentiments exactly! I live in Michigan and couldn't agree with you more. I am wanting to skewer the party leaders who allowed this to happen--those who INSISTED on moving the primary date up, even when the DNC warned them not to. Do you know how to go about finding out exactly who the decision makers were?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 AM on 05/25/2008

Let's use the football analogy. As long as there is time remaining on the clock, you can stay in the game whatever the score is. However, what you cannot do is change the rules in the middle of the game, and that is where the analogy breaks down. Hillary is trying to change all the metrics: not only does the delegate count not matter, but the way you count the popular vote has to be her way: exclude caucus states and include two states whose elections were voided by the DNC. Finally, she is making the case that by accepting the MI/FL results, she is enfranchising the two states, but what about all the people who did not vote thinking their vote will not count?

And of course, it is Obamas fault that, respecting the rules, he took his name of the Michigan ballot, the big dummy.

    Favorite