Memo to the Obama Campaign: Why Fight Over 4 Delegates?
The thousands of Clinton supporters in the streets on Saturday in front of DC's Marriott Hotel, many of them from Florida and Michigan, were angry in the beginning of the day. At the end of the day, they were even angrier -- with the prime focus of their ire Senator Barack Obama.
And the difference between a happy vs. an angry outcome was -- I am not making this up -- just four Michigan delegates, a forced switch of just four delegates from Senator Clinton's to Senator Obama's total.
This decision was made by a divided DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee over the strong objection of Senator Clinton's representative on the committee, Harold Ickes. It was made with the support of Senator Obama's campaign and his representatives on the Rules Committee.
Put aside the merits of the arguments on both sides and let's just look at the politics.
Senator Obama says at this stage he wants to promote party unity. The DNC Chair Howard Dean says the same thing. The party "leaders" we hear about more and more in the media say the same thing.
Yet when it came down to the crucial moments during Saturday afternoon's deliberations of the Rules Committee concerning the seating of the Michigan delegation, Senator Obama and his supporters on the committee drew a bright line over four delegates. Why?
Beats me.
Here's the simple math. The final split of the Michigan delegation supported by Senator Clinton's campaign was 73-55, reflecting the percentage results of the Michigan primary (55% votes won by Senator Clinton, 40% won by "uncommitted.") The Rules Committee decided to take four of those votes from Senator Clinton and give them to Senator Obama, so the final total was now Clinton 69 and Obama 59.
Mr. Ickes argued that the word "hijack" was appropriate regarding those four delegates because there was no legal basis for the Rules and Bylaws Committee -- either under party rules as well as the Charter (constitution) of the Party for a DNC committee to take delegates from one candidate and award them to another; and certainly not to award delegates inconsistent with the "fair reflection" of the will of Democratic voters. Mr. Ickes rightly pointed out that the "fair reflection" requirement is a core requirement of the DNC's Charter -- as fundamental a constitutional value for the Democratic Party as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to the American people.
The pro-Obama forces would argue that the Michigan primary was "flawed" because not everyone, including Senator Obama, was on the ballot. (It is also a fact that Senator Obama could have kept his name on the ballot under the party rules, as did Senators Clinton and Chris Dodd, but chose not to).
But putting the arguments pro- and con- aside, let's go back to the opening question, based on plain political considerations:
Why would Senator Obama want to draw a bright line over a difference of plus/minus four delegates? If that's what it would have taken to bring unity out of the Michigan - Florida rules fight, why not agree? Why risk exacerbating the problems Senator Obama already could have among the most loyal Clinton voters, many of them women, in the millions across the country and many in the critical battleground states?
Beats me.
The Clinton campaign has a decision to make -- whether to go to the national convention's Credentials Committee to challenge what they argue is an unconstitutional and illegal transfer by the non-valid fiat of the Rules Committee of delegates committed to one candidate to another candidate. They feel they have a constitutional core principle to defend the Charter's commitment to small "d" democracy and the rule of law. Rightly or wrongly, that may seem to be a principle worth taking to the Credentials Committee or even the convention floor.
If they do so, and the party remains divided between a candidate who won more delegates by a sliver of a margin vs. a candidate who won more popular votes out of more than 34 million cast -- and virtually all the battleground and border states -- it may well be that Senator Obama some day will ask senior officials in his campaign organization -- "why did we fight over four delegates when we didn't need to?"
I can just hear someone answering him,
"Beats me."
Loading comments…
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
Why did Hillary say that FL and MI wouldn't count, and then turned around and demanded that they count, and riled up sentiment against Obama by saying that he was blocking a re-vote, and then used the issue as a divisive campaign tool, and then pretended to be the only one that cared about those two states when the best-case scenario would still not have put her within reach of the nomination?
Beats me.
Why, if 4 votes should be considered no big deal, would they become a divisive issue for Hillary supporters?
Beats me.
Why did Clinton continue on in the race using divisive, scorched earth politics for two months after she knew she had no realistic chance of winning?
Beats me.
Folks, very simple.
They see it as just one more woman-hating smack-down from the big bad mean man. Pushed our girl's nose down into the dirt, just because he could. (That's paraphrased, BTW, directly from comments I've read on a lot of pro-HRC blogs.)
Found it interesting what mredder has to say about Hillary sitting out the 2004 election even though they wanted her to run. Could it be that she was scared of running against a second Bush term with Bush at the height of popularity over the war? Could it be that she preferred Kerry to run and lose so that she can run in 2008?
Problem is this: She did NOT foresee that a junior senator from Illinois with a funny sounding, muslim name would be a major force in the 2008 election and disentitle her! Why do you think she has such a difficult time conceeding even though the maths suggests that she should?
To her credit, all Democrats need to thank her for vetting Barack Obama by stealing the Republican's thunder with her Rovian tactics!
Lanny, get over it. The Clinton's campaign is like an athlete running a 100 metre race using a 200 metre strategy. She is gaining moment at 150 metres! Big deal if she won W.Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, S.Dakota! the race is about delegates and it's over! Has been since Iowa!
"thousands of supporters in the streets"?????? Hey you had the TV turned to ET Tonight's coverage of the opening of "Sex In The City" not the committee meeting. Most news agencies estimated the turn out of Clinton supporters to be in the hundreds. Oh, wait you are a Clinton backer and math is not your strong point. Sorry never mind go back to what you were thinking it would take to long to explain the truth to you.
The Clinton camp was also suggesting, with a straight face, that Obama shouldn't get any delegates from Michigan whatsoever. Zero.
Maybe Hillary should lose those delegates for having the sheer audacity to call that fair.
Considering that the contest was unsanctioned and completely flawed the delegate allocation is arguably almost completely arbitrary.
The primary wasn't a fair reflection of Michigan, so why make the delegates an exact reflection of the primary?
Clinton still gets an arbitrary 10 delegate lead: from an unsanctioned, flawed primary, who can say she would have got that?
Why is Obama drawing a line over four delegates? I think it's quite the opposite. Why is Hillary drawing the line? She wouldn't know fair play if it hit her in the face. Obama should now turn around and give her those four delegates and tell her what she can do with them. I tell you this. Even if on Saturday the RBC gave her the four delegates, Hillary and company would have found something else to bitch and moan about. And she's for a unified party? Give me a break.
it's easy why she's drawing the line. those 4 were based on people who voted for her? what is the rationale for taking those from her, particularly after he was being awarded all the uncommitted although surely some of them were Edwards' votes, as Edwards was still in the race, had Union support in Michigan and had been telling his supporters to vote uncommitted. so he already had gotten a gift.
It's simple Mr. Davis. Because you know it's fair. And you know it's the right thing to do. I hear there was a deal that could have given Obama even more of an advantage, but his side decided against it.
Mr. Davis, you must know, had all things been equal with both your candidate and Obama campaigning in Michigan, the result would have been even closer than this ultimate decision.
I know you must be friends with the Clintons. I know that is what's coloring your own common sense. But it's time for you and the other emotionally attached Clinton surrogates to wake up and realize what is right for America now.
You did your best for Hillary, Mr. Davis. Now Obama and, more importantly, Democrats need your best to win the White House in November!
Bravo.
Clinton supporters had been wearing shirts that read "Every Vote Counts", it made me chuckle after I heard Harold Ickes' claim that his candidate is ahead in the Popular Vote. That statement is at best totally unclear, and at worst purposefully misleading, and is incendiary talk considering the fragile nature of the democratic party. It actually takes out the votes of people who participated in sanctioned caucuses. If Clinton supporters chanting "Denver!, Denver!, Denver!" (the closest thing to political violence i've seen since the brooks brothers riot) truly believe that "EVERY VOTE COUNTS" and not "EVERY CLINTON VOTE COUNTS MORE" Then caucus votes count too, as do "uncommitted" votes. Even votes that weren’t supposed to count in the first place now count because parties are trying to create unity, while others chant to gleefully destroy any unity in the democratic party. This is important and Unity isn't an empty term. Without unity we lose roe vs. wade in the next supreme court. Clinton supporters that threaten to vote for McCain had better sit down and really think about the consequences pragmatically, What we lose without unity, and what the world loses. This next fight is too important too put our cakewalk victory that President Bush bungled his way into handing us, into peril. It's time for Senator Clinton to call off the dogs, put Harold Ickes' Karl Rove-ian Math away and unite the party. She will be a way better VP then Cheney, at least she wont shoot anyone.
Is this the same Lanny Davis that, one day before the election in Puerto Rico predicted on WS Journal record turnouts in Puerto Rico exceeding 2 million voters, and then we found out that the actual turnout turned out to be less than 1/5 of that number? lol
Not to mention that you guys made such a big deal about the caucuses not being democratic (only when it was clear that Hillary was loosing), but funny how you don't bother to mention that Puerto Rico, while it is not a state and does not have a say in November, it actually allocates more delegates to the democratic primary than 27 of the 50 states. You guys don't seem complain about that somehow.
Funny how, when you make absurd arguments and predictions they come back to bite you.
P.S. For those of you who wonder about the details, I got the numbers from Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/2/10551/71896/833/526984
LOL oh Lanny you will be the one Hillary shill I am sorry to see go, simply because of the constant amusement I get from your BS.
I hadn't watched the RBC meeting on Saturday, but I did hear about these 4 delegates on the news yesterday while watching the PR primary. In reading this article, now I know what they were talking about.
Lanny - THIS WAS AN AGREEMENT REACHED BY THE STATE OF MI! You know, the people HRC is supposedly trying to fight for. If the people of MI are OK with this deal, why shouldn't you and your candidate be OK with it?
Besides, these 4 delegates weren't Clinton's anyway. Up until the RBC met, NONE of the delegates from MI or FL were included in delegate totals. So, you never had 73 delegates to begin with. Both walked in with exactly 0 delegates from MI. Clinton left with 69 and Obama left with 59 after an agreement from the state.
What really 'beats me' is why the Clinton camp wants to be so divisive about this. First they said it was Sen. Obama's fault that the states didn't have revotes, now its his fault that both MI and FL weren't seated in full and per Clinton's specifications. Whatever. Be thankful you can get ANY delegates out of MI and FL.
But, Lanny would have found something to ramble about regardless of how the RBC ruled. Like I said, I'll miss his amusing BS when he's
Memo to the Clinton campaign:
right back at ya-
Why Fight Over Four Delegates?
Mr. Davis,
Get over it.
Mr. Davis,
The expression 'it's a contact sport" (made by Bill Clinton) said it best in "Clinton speak."
The four delegate votes are moot. The battleground is in every state. Please spread the word that it's no longer necessary to do battle- just unify. Thank you.
getrealalready
Lanny, Lanny, Lanny. The reason we did not go along with accepting the 73-55 split is because it would have validated another FALSE election into your argument on the popular vote. The compromises on Saturday by the RBC were nothing more than to bring those two states, that violated party rules, into the process, nothing more. Because the Florida results were accepted as a basis for splitting the delegates everyone accepts the bogus argument that they are part of the popular vote argument, which they still should not be. To base the delegate split on the FALSE election in Michigan would have given you Clintonites more talking points. As it is today nobody outside of the Clinton campaign are discussing the popular vote from Michigan in discussion on who legitimately won the popular vote. In fact the RCP has Obama with a 24K vote lead in the popular vote after having included Florida now as official results. They are still showing a the bogus total with Michigan separately. So NO, Obama's folk were able to see through your crap and did not play your game even if it was just 4 delegates.
let me see if i understand your rationale. MI and FL must be punished for violating party rules and the punishment? a violation of party rules and of its most basic tenet -- fair representation. is that you justice scalia?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
