After DNC Ruling Obama 66 Delegates Away From Clinching Nomination

WASHINGTON — Democratic Party leaders agreed Saturday to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes at this summer's convention with a compromise that left Barack Obama on the verge of the nomination but riled Hillary Rodham Clinton backers who threatened to fight to the August convention.

"Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity," said adviser Harold Ickes.

Clinton's camp maintains she was entitled to four additional Michigan delegates.

The decision by the party's Rules Committee raised slightly the total delegates Obama needs to clinch the nomination. Clinton advisers conceded privately he will likely hit the magic number after the final primaries are held Tuesday night, but said the ruling threatened to dash any hopes of a unified party.

"Mrs. Clinton has told me to reserve her right to take this to the Credentials Committee" at the convention, said Ickes, who is a member of the Rules Committee that voted Saturday.

The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama just 66 delegates away from the majority needed to secure the nomination.

"Our main goal is to get this resolved so we can focus on winning Michigan and Florida," Obama said while campaigning in South Dakota. "There were compromises. ... I'm glad the DNC worked it through and I hope we can start focusing on substance as opposed to process."

The deal was reached after committee members deliberated for nine hours, including three where they met privately and argued fiercely over their eventual deal, according to several people inside. They voted in front of a raucous hotel ballroom that frequently interrupted proceedings and reflected deep divisions within the party.

"How can you call yourselves Democrats if you don't count the vote?" one of the many hecklers in the audience yelled loudly and repeatedly before being escorted out by security. "This is not the Democratic Party!"

A senior Clinton adviser, speaking on a condition of anonymity about internal campaign decisions, said the decision could be used to help her raise campaign donations for a scaled-down campaign that might focus on a signature issue _ such as health care reform _ rather than a traditional fight for the nomination.

The advisers said no decisions had been made, and it was still possible that Clinton would bow out once Obama goes over the top.

Clinton and her supporters wanted the Michigan and Florida delegations fully restored, according to January primaries that she won. But those contests were not recognized by the party because they were held too early, and both candidates agreed at the time they would not count.

But as Clinton tried to catch up to Obama's delegate lead, she has argued that the votes of the 2.3 million people who participated in the elections must be recognized.

Obama supporters argued that they did compromise by allowing her to take the majority of delegates in two contests where he didn't campaign.

The sticking point was Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

Clinton's camp insisted Obama shouldn't get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama's team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.

The committee agreed on a compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic Party that would split the difference, allowing Clinton to take 69 delegates and Obama 59. Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention, according to the deal.

The deal passed 19-8. Thirteen members of the committee had endorsed Clinton for president, so she wasn't even able to keep her supporters together.

Allan Katz, a Rules Committee member and Obama supporter, said the Obama campaign had enough votes on the committee to support the campaign's proposal to split the delegates 50-50 in Michigan. Ultimately, the campaign agreed instead to support the compromise negotiated by the Michigan Democratic Party as a way to resolve the matter.

"The ironic thing is Obama had the majority of that committee," Katz said. "The Obama campaign wants to move on and compromise. We did not muscle our way through it. It was a wise decision from a well run and wise campaign that will reverberate."

But the irate reaction from Clinton's campaign and her supporters in the sharply divided audience shows Obama will have a long way to go to bring the party together after a long and divisive primary.

"We just blew the election!" a woman in the audience shouted. The crowd was divided between cheering Obama supporters and booing Clinton supporters.

"This isn't unity! Count all the votes!" another audience member yelled.

Jim Roosevelt, co-chair of the committee, tried repeatedly to gavel it to order. "You are dishonoring your candidate when you disrupt the speakers," he chided.

There are three primaries left in the contest _ Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Obama should get at least 30 delegates in the remaining primaries, meaning he has to pick up no more than about 30 more superdelegates even if he loses Puerto Rico and South Dakota.

He will not clinch the nomination this weekend, barring a barrage of superdelegates Sunday.

The committee also unanimously agreed to seat the Florida delegation based on the outcome of the January primary, with 105 pledged delegates for Clinton and 67 for Obama, but with each delegate getting half a vote as a penalty.

Proponents of full seating continuously interrupted the committee members as they explained their support of the compromise, then supporters of the deal shouted back.

"Shut up!" one woman shouted at another.

"You shut up!" the second woman shouted back.

Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida. Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5.

A proposal favored by Clinton that would have fully seated the Florida delegation fully in accordance with the January primary went down with 12 votes in support and 15 against.

Tina Flournoy, who led Clinton's efforts to seat both states' delegations with full voting power, said she was disappointed by the outcome but knew the Clinton position had "no chance" of passing the committee.

"I understand the rules. ... I can tell you one thing that has driven these rules was being a party of inclusion," Flournoy said. "I wish my colleagues will vote differently."

Alice Huffman, a Clinton supporter on the committee, explained that the compromise giving delegates half votes was the next best thing to full seating.

"We will leave here more united than we came," she said.

Some audience members heckled her in response. "Lipstick on a pig!" one shouted.

___

Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

http://www.democrats.org

Comments

[dhinds]

So does America need a warrior or a statesman as President? A one-trick pony or a multifaceted community organizer with an deep understanding of government and a firm commitment to making the USA a better place to live, work and raise a family?

A soldier who's been on the government payroll for three generations and thinks that the world needs more war, or a man who worked his way up and excelled at all that he did, to become a constitutional scholar, an extraordinarily effective legislator and a champion of constructive social change?

Do you want More of the Same, or a Change you can Believe in, a Change that Comprehends Americas Needs, Provides for it's Potential and Realizes it's Aspirations?

A man who divorced his wife to marry an heiress, or a family man loyal to the wife he loves?

A tortured man who never understood why, or a man who knows better than invade a sovereign country that represented no threat to the USA?

[graffen48]

For all the people threatening to vote for McCain; in addition to a huge loss for women's rights if McCain is elected, i would also hope that some of these people will find the time to visit the families of all the additional men and women in our armed forces who will be killed during 4 more years of war. Maybe some of these "revenge" voters can help expain to the children why their mommy or daddy had to die.

[BobSymmes]

Let's all remember:

a) The DNC actually caused this extended mess by de-certifying these two states' primaries, instead of (like the RNC) halving their votes from the git-go.

b) Obama (and Edwards) obeyed the DNC request by removing their names from the MI ballot; Clinton explained her reasons for notdoing the same was that it wasn't necessary, "These votes won't count."

c) FL law does not allow a candidate to remove her or his name; plus this state's mess was entirely created by the REPUBLICAN legislature & Governor (we all know how experienced this group is at managing elections!);

d) MI only advanced its primary before the Feb 5th limit once NH was granted a "waiver" to do the same (probably NH should have been included in the original pre-deadline group).

Thus, this whole mess (which is threatening a Democratic victory in a year which otherwise should be a slam dunk) can be laid at the feet of: (1) the DNC, and (2) Florida Republicans. It's NOT Clinton, or Obama, or their followers (though I think Ickes needs an epidural).

Let's get real, folks -- even without this mess, Obama won more delegates. Ask Al Gore how important the popular votes are in an election. I think either candidate will be a breath of fresh air after the putrid atmosphere of lies and partisan politics since 2000, but Obama will have earned the nomination; no one wuz robbed.

LET'S GET OUR ACT TOGETHER -- FOR OUR FUTURE!

[NYCMami]

*Stands up and applauses*

Well said!

I couldn't help but see these sad-sacks yesterday (like Ickes, Tina F and A. Huffman) looking so pained yesterday and think "um, YOU DID THIS!". To me the Clinton supporters on the Committee are so disingenious they should really lose their positions. Why? Because they voted for these states not to be counted in the FIRST place then when their horse wasn't winning they started pounding their chests in a 'mea culpa'. Like the honorable Donna Brazille's momma said "when you change the rules this late in the game, it's called cheating".

As for either candidate I felt that way in the beginning but have been appalled by Clintons' moral code. It personally offends me. But, I suppose she would be better after 8 years of Bush/Cheney. That's saying a lot about how bad their were.

Finally, yes! Obama is our candidate. Let's work to bring the fair and square nominee to the Oval Office.

[zippywpinhead]

C) not true- both the Fl house and senate versions of the bill were introduced by Dems, not republicans and were voted on near unanimously by the Fl Dems. Their current sob story that they had to vote for the bill b/c of the paper trail amendment discounts 2 important points.
1) Why introduce a bill that you oppose? The paper trail component could have been attached to ANY bill as an amendment, why introduce legislation that invalidates votes in order to establish a paper recount of those votes-doesn't pass the laugh test
2) The good faith clause of the DNC rules would've granted Fl relief had they shown said good faith and voted against the bill, even had they lost to the Repub majority

you can lay this at the feet of the DNC- yes, they should've put their foot down re: state party anarchy long ago- Dean calling the state's bluff was better late than never, but this could've been avoided decades ago. But blame also falls with the state Dems in both states- they were just as complicit in trying to jump to the front of the line as the repubs, given that conventional wisdom 2 years ago was that it'd be a 1 horse race and Clinton would be crowned by Feb 5th

[dhinds]

Yes, but that's over.

It's time to bury the hatchet and take a HRC supporter out (or home) to lunch, dialog a bit and learn to live (and work) with each other.

[WasteNJ]

SO Harold Ickes (Ickeees) claims the right to take the fight to the convention over the allocation of, are you ready, FOUR delegates being "taken from" Clinton and moved to Barack's column. Never mind that the primary was illegitimate, never mind that the committee had the votes to allocate the delegates 50/50, and never mind that the Obama campaign graciously gave HRC the majority of delegates in the interest of fairness.

SO now what HRC needs to win is 90% of the undeclared Superdelegates, after all the contests are over with best-case scenario math. At that point, Obama would need about 28 delegates, out of over 200 undeclared, to clinch. HRC needs like 190.
Good luck with that. At least now we know how HRC supporters will react, judging by the fiasco at the DNC ruling. Please grow up.

Only a few more days!

[dknightpost]

Here are 8 words I ask supporters of Senator Clinton, who are threatening to vote for John McCain, to consider:

John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel, Alito.

Senator McCain will nominate any future members for the Supreme Court in the exact same mold as these members of The Supreme Court.

It's devastating to see the candidate whom you have invested your heart and soul in lose. Most of us, as committed Democrats and Progressives, have felt that kind of loss deeply in the last two Presidential election cycles.

But it will be far more devastating to women's rights, civil rights, and our nation if John McCain is allowed to fill the future vacancies in the Supreme Court.

Please consider three additional words if the argument above has not convinced you that a vote for John McCain is counter to all you hold dear:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Justice Ginsberg has been waiting to retire her place in the Supreme Court - counting on all of us who believe in women's rights and who support equality and justice - to elect a Democratic Candidate who will protect these cherished Constitutionally guaranteed principles.

To borrow the words of Spike Lee: "Do the right thing." Please.

[igiveup]

Did you check out the picture that's shown with this story? Doesn't Harriet Christian look exactly like every woman you imagined would vote for McCain rather than the officially-nominated Democratic candidate?

[TheRealFish]

Whether anyone thinks this or not, whether Obama supporter or Clinton supporter, it may be time to stop the Us vs. Them when the "us" also includes "them".

It might be time to suggest wins are wins and losses are losses and that's the reason they put cameras at the finish line of *real* horse races. And that it does not matter in even a by-a-nose finish where either of the horses were on the track before the camera clicks its shutter.

Or that a woman who, for whatever emotional reasons, who votes to elect one or two Supreme Court justices in the next four years (a very, very likely situation) that will eliminate a woman's right to control her own body for maybe the next 50 years -- what McCain has promised -- to spite a by-a-nose winner who has pledged to help move that court back at least to the middle (or farther if we get enough Dems voted in to Congress as well), she really ought to take a big, deep breath, and rethink that decision based on overwhelming emotion.

There are so many other reasons than just this example; we must all be more creative than snarky now.

HRC seems unwilling just yet to favor party unity over her own ambitions. It falls to the rest of us to strive toward that party unity necessary to stop our slide into a Neocon abyss.

[NYCMami]

That's fine and I agree. However, you are pretty much preaching to the choir. These people, like Harriet Christian, are irate and irrational (hopefully just for right now). Reason is not thier top priority. Neither is unity. It's all about Hillary. And it's starts from the top down. Shame.

[WasteNJ]

Yes, she does. She looks like a venomous Republican. Her outburst at the meeting shows just how little respect she and her crew have for the DNC in general, when things don't go their way.

[timetorevolt]

According to the pundints, the majority of white women in Democratic party will not vote for Obama. If that is the case, they deserve McSame's Supreme Court appointment that will certainly do more harm to them than any appointment Obama would make. If they think Hillary losing is big step backwards for women, they should consider what McSame's nomination will do for women rights..especially Roe vs Wade.

[happypup]

The pundits enjoy and encourage anything that makes for a provocative story. Most will come round after a period fo adjustment and when they do, we will be glad to have them with us.

[TheRealFish]

Agreed.

But is now also falls on us -- out here in blog land -- to attempt as coolly as possible to suggest concrete reasons why taking such an emotion-based action goes against that person's self-interests.

The Us v. Them that this primary campaign has engendered (we all have personal opinions about who started it all...) has to start to stop now. It is really, really over (for step #1 toward the fall). There are stages of grief that must be experienced for those who have invested so much of themselves in this fight. First denial, then anger, etc.

The Us v. Them that has existed for the past year (!) must now shift to recognize that "them" IS "us." It is going to be a hard shift, and all should strenuously attempt to not react to expressions of grief, but offer as many fact-based reasons why voting McCain is cutting off one's own nose to spite one's face.

[newplasticmachine]

I'm having a hard time believing these people are Democrats. It really seems plausible that they could be another part of right-wing chaos makers, something akin to Nixon's dirty tricksters. These people, if they are foolish enough to be sincere, are putting the personal ambitions of Hillary Clinton before the needs of the country. That in itself is un-American let alone anti-Democratic.

[TheRealFish]

They are experiencing grief at the dashing of their dreams against the hard fact that even in close contests, one side wins and the other side does not. The first two stages are denial then anger. We have to expect these reactions.

Yes, it appears HRC and her close-by enablers are still in that "denial" part that can be very damaging, especially if choosing a scorched-earth fight to the convention. Some proportion of her followers are experiencing a mix of the first two stages at once.

It is time, if those who support Obama actually believe in his pledge to unite the country, that we must start first with the Democratic party since it has become a reflection of the divisions in the country in microcosm. We must ignore the Clinton strategy to burn down the whole house if she doesn't get to stay in the master bedroom and appeal to her followers based on the very real fact that voting McCain goes against every principle that the Clintons once preached. They actually disrespect their candidate's campaign policies by taking such an action.

[southafrica4obama]

Ickes is stupid to cry over four delegates. seriously, 4 delegates! well, let's give them 4 and see if they will reach the magic number ahead of President Obama.

[JackND]

Ickes is a FRAUD for whining about them when it was Hillary's campaign that first introduced the possibility of PLEDGED delegates not being so pledged after all.

I laugh at the Clinton campaign getting so little yesterday, and I have no sympathy for the women who on the news sobbing yesterday. I can sympathize with their wanting a female president, but they shouldn't have hitched their wagon to such a corrupt, morally bankrupt horse.

Chatting at church this morning, the vast majority of women were delighted with yesterday's outcome.

[TheRealFish]

To me the most salient point is that, in 2007, Ickes voted in the RBC IN FAVOR of totally negating the FL and MI jump-up primaries. He has no "moral" argument to make here, since he was one of the original RBC disenfranchisers.

Oh, and I'm one of those hard working white 55 year old male Obama supporters who didn't waste my time and vote because I accepted the word of the RBC, the DNC and every candidate including Clinton that my Michigan vote "would not count" (the exact words Clinton used in a NH interview).

The whole concept of accepting the MI votes as they stand as a real reflection of the MI electorate is completely preposterous, since I personally know a ton of Obama supporters who took my action (staying at home since there was no place for us to hang our chad), or were part of the 33,000 write-ins that aren't being counted, voted for Kucinich just because or voted for a perceived weakest Republican candidate. The Clinton plan they assert totally cuts off our voice, so that position has no moral grounding in truth.

[corsair1917]

For all the Hillary Clinton Supporters, I would like to point out one fact.

Hillary Clinton did not give a rat's a-- about your vote months ago when she didn't think she would need it to win. She is only concerned with your vote now so she can get the popular vote. They knew about the rules when she AGREED to them!

And if you all were going be this upset by the outcome - WHY WEREN'T YOU PROTESTING IN YOUR OWN STATES before the votes were even cast???? It's not like you didn't know about it.

I respect that you are disappointed that you won't get to vote for the candidate of choice. The candidate of my choice is no longer in the race so I get it. But threatening to hold the party hostage because you didn't get your way is ridiculous.

[Rjchinook]

It's just all too weird, why did Hillary keep her name on the ballots in MI & FL and the other major canidates did not? Especially after she agreed with these rules! It doesn't make sense, I think she did it just in case so she can do what she's doing now.

[happypup]

Obama's name was on the ballot in Florida - Michigan was the state where Hillary was the only major candidate with her name on the ballot.

[TheRealFish]

MI here: There was no rule or pledge to pull names off the ballot. Why she left hers on (and why many of the others did not) makes total sense.

That early in the campaign, and without any of the candidates committing to on-the-ground campaigns here in Michigan or Florida, back at a time when Clinton was considered "inevitable" to win, the votes here and in Florida were really a "whose name do you most recognize" popularity contest.

That all candidates pledged to not campaign here or in Florida, and all stuck to that pledge, means that neither contest was really fair -- to anyone but Hillary. She led in the all the national polls, was "presumptive" in the MSM, and she even said the race "would all be over in February" (Super Tuesday). No on-the-ground or on-the-air campaigning, she wins. Pretty much "duh."

(Except that, by the measure of those 33,000 write-ins, the guesstimation of the stay-at-homes and that 3/4 of the "uncommitted went to Obama added together displays something much, much closer to a 50/50 split here is all the more interesting in that the on-the-ground campaign was NOT waged, yes?)

[Purcy]

I don't think you can speak for what Hillary cared about or didn't care about...the number of people who profess to know what everyone thinks and why they think as they do on this site amazes me...must be a meeting of psychics!

[Actionmac]

An embarrassing END to her campaign and political life, she ask for it and she got it... now time to move all the clintonites from the DNC, it's fumigation time.

[Purcy]

The democrats will need to unify in order for a win in November...do you really think this is the way to accomplish that. Just supporting Obama isn't enough. Don't you recall how you felt as a democrat (if you are) during the entire course of the Bush Administration? We are still one party and if your desire is a democrat in the whitehouse, then maybe you should give some thought to how you can help create that unity.

[TheRealFish]

Whether we need the Clintons is something that can be debated; their lust for power has been pretty divisive over the course of this campaign.

But her/his followers are still US. They are a part of "us." We do need them, and they are grieving (frustration, denial, anger, and all that). We need to appeal to the followers' reason, after giving them their time to let their feelings settle.

Yes, if HRC regains a sense of political grace, can woman-up and face the fact she lost, the process of bringing her followers back into the fold will be made much more plausible, but it is not going to be easy.

Still these are the tasks that lay before us all: Wednesday or Thursday or Friday is the actual beginning of the general election campaign, and we must find a way to suck it up, pull it all back together and move forward to prevent an even further descent into the Neocon abyss represented by a McCain presidency.

[Womanvoter4Obama]

And to all the Hillary supporters who want to vote for McCain...by all means, please do. Stop complaining and go join his campaign that is completely opposite of what your candidate espoused. Let spite drive you to it. You will NOT be missed in the least by those of us who truly support our party. To me to even consider it makes you all traders and your place IS in the Republican party.

Yesterday sounded like teenagers who broke the rules trying to negotiate with parents to go out knowing they did something wrong. Even the threat by Ickes in the end reminded me of the threats I'd throw at my parents when I didn't get my way. It was childish when I did it and childish yesterday. There was not a thing for Hillary supporters to be proud of. I was embarrassed FOR you. I think the eyes of the entire country were opened yesterday and not in favor of Clinton. I think Hillary really does not want Obama to win. If she can win no Democrat will.

[Purcy]

The democrats will need to unify in order for a win in November...do you really think this is the way to accomplish that. Just supporting Obama isn't enough. Don't you recall how you felt as a democrat (if you are) during the entire course of the Bush Administration? We are still one party and if your desire is a democrat in the whitehouse, then maybe you should give some thought to how you can help create that unity

[theBURNZINATOR]

Hillary needs a publicity agent this talk is really damaging her reputation. She needs to repair her reputation to be able to continue in politics.

[TheRealFish]

I think it's extremely instructive that Harold Ickes played a role in Ted Kennedy's march to the convention in 1980 -- one of the contributing factors to Jimmy Carter's landslide loss to Ronald Reagan.

[Womanvoter4Obama]

What happened yesterday was a disgrace and an embarrassment. Clinton supporters should not be PROUD of that display yesterday and if they believe that is what the superdelegates wanted to see then they are on crack. They basically showed the entire world they are selfish, unwilling to compromise and I'm sorry but we've had 8 years of that.

Even AFTER the states of Florida and MI were satisfied to be recognized and have voting power again and being seated at the convention Clinton and her team (Ickes et al) showed their natural asses. To me this was a display in all the reasons Hillary Clinton should not lead. She's shown she has no power to bring people together, that she's a divisive force and that she can insight rage in people. She's more of a Hilter than a Kennedy type leader and that should be scary. If you were to compare those who blindly support her to those who blinded supported Hilter you'd see a lot of things in common. What I saw yesterday was just beyond sad and pathetic. It showed the world that it was NEVER about FL and MI it was ALWAYS about Hillary and what's best for her. Fuck the DNC. It's all about Hillary.

[rh654]

Hillary supporters claims about "hijacking votes" etc... is such hogwash.

The RULES as voted on would deny MI and FL ANY votes at all - period - so Hillary would end up with nothing from those two states - THOSE were the RULES voted on.

So - what happened was they wanted to CHANGE the rules - ok - that's fine - but no one can claim that something then isn't fair - because once you open the can or worms to change rules - then everything becomes fair game.

Hillary Supporters - don't be made at others because Hillary lost.

You need to be outraged that Hillary put together a team that did not run a winning race - you need to be outraged at people like Mark Penn who only looked at the first few races and did not have a set strategy to deal with Caucuses and anything after Super Tuesday.

But ultimately Hillary is the candidate - she has final authority over hiring and firing and she did not put together a winning combination.

She may have gotten close - but like in auto racing there is only one person across the finish line first - no matter how close second place is and Obama will get to that finish line first now.