The Next Clinton Battleground: DNC Rules Committee Meeting

What you'll see televised from the DNC's Rules and By-laws Committee meeting on Saturday, May 31, will be a swarm of irate Hillary Backers carrying signs and protesting any possible outcome of the Mich./Fl. debacle other than a no-fault decision with the votes going to HRC. She needs 'em. And she needs the rules changed, despite the fact that she agreed with the DNC's decision last fall. But that was when she was still "inevitable".

While Camp Clinton bats their collective baby blues and denies organizing a mini-mob scene to influence the decision (Those pesky volunteers do the darnedest things without any encouragement!), they've been actively urging Clinton supporters to pressure the DNC to fix the game Hillary's Way.

What you won't see is a swarm of irate Obama supporters protesting the protesters or anything else. Not that there weren't thousands of on-line members of My.BO ready to go at the first hint of the Clinton Crowd's descending on D.C. All of them were as passionate as Hillary supporters. Many of them were just as angry. With an on-line organization as large Obama's, his volunteers, with a little encouragement, could have overrun the city.

They got no such encouragement. What Obama volunteers got from HQ was a clear message: Do not go. Do not protest. Do not pressure the DNC. This is not who we are. We are about changing this kind of political posturing. There are better ways, more positive ways, to use your time. Phone banking. Canvassing. Registering new voters.

Whether he liked them or not, Senator Obama played by the DNC's rules in Michigan and Florida. Senator Clinton thought the rules were just fine so long as she was front runner and destined to win the nomination. The specter of losing compels Hillary to change the rules.

Of course, she's not playing this bait and switch game only because she has to win this thing any way she can--she's the new, improved populist who cannot bear the thought of a single vote not counting for all it's worth. Not a one.

Unless it's a caucus state vote.

Comments

[Krikkit]

The reason why the DNC wishes to preserve the place of the Iowa and New Hampshire contests is that they have historic and practical *value* in winnowing out the pack. These two contests have always been indicators to the presidential candidates who has a real shot and who should fold. That's their value, as indicators.

Of course, Carl Levin won't tell you that because Michigan saw some value in jumping to the head of the pack, ironically believing that they would obtain some level of prestige by being one of the first to hold contests. Now we know that with 2 early caucuses and 2 early primaries, the process gets extended such that the *late* contests have more clout than the early ones.

Michigan also wanted to punish the DNC in a pique of sour grapes over New Hampshire jumping ahead of the other caucus state. Since NH's move did not invalidate the intention of the 4 early contests (which was to allow the early contests to be more reflective of the voting public), the RB committee gave them a waiver when asked. Michigan had no such rationale for jumping the calendar, so they were punished and rightly so.

[KillTheMessenger]

"Now we know that with 2 early caucuses and 2 early primaries, the process gets extended such that the *late* contests have more clout than the early ones."

I doubt it. Iowa broke Senator Clinton's back, an injury from which she never recovered. Without the win in Iowa nothing else would have been possible for the Obama campaign.

[kellygrrrl]

yup! We in CA worked our butts off to get our Primary moved up LEGALLY!

now I wish we were still on the late side. I'm pretty sure the results would be different here.

oh, well! at least we played by the rules

[ProudLiberalDan]

Let us not forget that part of why we got have this situation is that the DNC for some reasons wants to protect the undeserved sense of entitlement of Iowa and New Hampshire to winnow down the choices for the rest of us. I did not want nor do I need their help. I can think for myself. There's nothing special about the citizens of these states that make them any more qualified than any other American. For 2012, the Rules Committee must strip to these spoiled, undeserving states of their undeserved special privileges.

I also reject the "rotating regional primary" solution. Why should one region get more privileges than another?

I prefer a national primay day where every vote of every American counts equally. We can have a runoff if no one gets 50% of the vote.

For those who must have an extended primary season, the least-worst model on offer I've seen is the "5 x 10" model, where the ten least populous states votes on the first Tuesday in March, then next least 10 vote in April, and so on until the ten most populous states votes in June. A diversity of states would be voting on each day and metropolitan voters (a.k.a. "the majority") wouldn't be screwed as they are now by the process.

The top priority though is stripping Iowa and New Hampshire of their sense of entitlement to special privilege. No one or two states should have that kind of power.

[egal]

So what?

The issue isn't how voting should be odne--there are a million things that need fixing--but that rules everybody agreed to and Clinton herself made certain would go through are being challenged by a Clinton who is willing to do anything to win.

he rules aren't perfect, but she agreed to them when she thought she'd win, and fighting them now--in the middle of the process--just because she's losing is counterproductive and illegal.

Present your plans for change now for future elections, not for this now-past one.

[XME]

And unless it's Michigander (is that the right word?) who wants to support Obama!

[GiggidyGeshmoygen]

In an interview with the AP on May 21, Clinton was asked whether she would take the Michigan/Florida fight all the way to the Convention floor. She answered:

"Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this.... I will consult with Floridians and the voters in Michigan because it's really their voices that are being ignored and their votes that are being discounted, and I'll support whatever the elected officials and the voters in those two states want to do."
==========­==========­==========­=====

i have never heard such a load of despicably disingenuous political claptrap --- clinton is using a republican­-engineere­d sh*tstorm IN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN as an excuse to IGNORE the voters IN 48 STATES and DISCOUNT the votes IN 48 STATES

everybody out there who DOESN'T think that this whole michigan/florida fiasco was engineered "from day one" in, of all places, florida by rove and the clintons RAISE YOUR HAND !!!!!!!!!

florida's sarasota county is being represented, as we speak, in the U.S. House by a republican, vern buchanan, who was declared the winner and "elected" in 2006 by 369 votes after 17,000 votes mysteriously, anomalously and inexplicably "disappeared" from the computer totals --- and of course, there was no paper trail, thanks to then governor jeb bush who over-rode official papertrail purchase recommendations ( http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/20/vote.contest/index.html )

it is no accident that florida is the birthplace of this political clusterf**k ---

[dumboldfarmer]

Considering all the damage she has already caused to the Democratic Party, including all the Democrats running for offices across the country, and her constant attacks on Obama instead of McCain and the Republicans, she should not be rewarded at this meeting. She should in fact be chastised and scorned for all her work favoring the Republicans. She should get nothing. Like it, or not.

[luvthelaw]

I've seen several posters on huff tonight suggest that to show our support, we should donate during the time the RBC is meeting. Thought I'd pass it along.

[Tomlastliberalleft]

Your rituals and superstitions/ Don't you find them kind of odd?/ Might as well kneel before Zod.

I kept wondering why Hillary has been acting...s­o...weird.­.....then it dawned on me, its not Hillary at all, hell no......sh­e has become General Zod...she is ZOD.....kn­eel before her in your slavery!

http://www.zod2008.com/

[AuntSam]

Which is the true statesman and honorable candidate? Clue No. 1: It's not the blonde. Clue No. 2: Sometimes women give women a bad name!

[MalamuteMan]

It's like Gollum and the Ring. She (they) tasted the power, now they just have to have it again.

[candyc]

A lot of people that I talk to believe that the Clintons made a WHOLE LOT of promises to their big donors (library and campaign) based on their breezing back to the WH.
Think about it. They may be in a panic and acting insane because they can't keep those promises.

[Krikkit]

Lol. Like when have the Clinton's EVER kept a single promise to anyone? Why would they start getting worried now?

How many vendors have they shafted so far?

[johnwinner]

Chicago '68, Miami '72 - Clinton's models. yep, srue plan for Victory - for John McCain. Bill and Hill have cooked the election, it's over; we need a new Party.

[YRM]

Why the heck didn't they just re-do the primaries? They still can, you know. Clinton first agreed to that in March, the money was raised, then Obama said no. (And where in "the rules" does it say one candidate gets veto power over holding a primary? What did the dnc lawyers have to say about that?) Michigan has an election on Aug 5 and Florida on Aug 26. WHY NOT REVOTE? If Obama still says no, then it should be ruled a forfeit and Clinton gets the votes.

Stop me if I'm making sense, folks...

[pupbayer]

Because Obama knows he can't win Michigan or Florida.

[Krikkit]

Oh, my, how red your face will be when he wins Michigan in the Fall. Florida has always been more problematical for any democratic candidate, but you never know, even they may surprise you in the fall by swinging Obama's way.

[kgb999]

I think state elections are controlled by laws and and such (I know pesky RULES dammit!); I don't think you can just demand to hold a party primary on the state's dime any time you want. I *think* the only way would be private financing separate from the state election (or an act of a GOP controlled legislature) .

You need to research the HONEST back-and-forth negotiations between the camps. It can be said that both camps have agreed to and rejected different election scenarios for both states - just not the same ones.

Ultimately though, it was the states themselves that ruled out having another election - not either candidate. If it was still a "legitimate path", Team Clinton would be beating that drum for all they were worth.

[dumboldfarmer]

Actually, a Michigan revote was effectively killed by a Federal Judge. He would not allow the parties to examine the voting lists, said it was unconstitutional.

[luvthelaw]

I support Obama and actually would love to see them revote. I'm not sure he'd win both states but he would do a heck of a lot better than the current numbers.

The reality was that both states decided there was no practical way to do revotes for many reasons - cost, supervision, caucus/primary, who would be able to vote.

[Krikkit]

How 'bout if we stop you because you are NOT making sense.

Obama never had the power to nix anything any of the State Democratic parties decided to do.

[hokulele]

EVERYONE ON THIS BLOG NEEDS TO READ M.S.BELLOW­S' ARTICLE--IT DESCRIBES HOW CLINTON HAS PUT A SNARE OUT IN THE BRIAR PATCH

HRC is going to Denver no matter what happens. More pulpit news. More talk of sexism on Obama's part from the Clinton Machine. The Clintons are dirt. After reading the Bellows article, take a break. See ya in November!

[uclafan]

link please

[AuntSam]

You can access it on huffington politics. Left hand column towards bottom dated May 29. It is updated until late this afternoon. PLEASE READ!

[kellygrrrl]

Hilary Rosen on Hardball today:

in one breath Ms. Rosen is saying that the Obama supporters have been horribly rude

then in the next breath she says you cannot attribute Geraldine Ferraro's comments (or any other surrogate) to Hillary herself.

Can't have it both ways Hilary

[MandyW]

Agreed. If Obama were really as powerful as the Clinton camp's criticisms imply (they seem to hold him personally responsible for anything ever said by anybody on the planet he ever met), that's a strong argument for electing him in a landslide. Anybody with that much control over other people's behavior ought to be able to bring about world peace on Day One [g].

[Krikkit]

lol. very nice respin! :)

[ReportThis]

Nice piece. Thanks, Linda.

[octoberxs]

Just a crazy question..­.at this point would it be better for her just to declare herself an independent so that the Democratic Party could move on? She could always run with Liebermann, who knows all the words to the song "my ego is bigger than the Democratic party" they could sing it together. When I first thought this I felt her running as an independent would ruin the party, but the longer she digs in and attacks the more damage she does to the party. Perhaps, it is time for her and her fanatics to take their Roven tactics to a new stage? With her out of the way by early June there is a good chance Obama could beat both McCain and Clinton. Most only look at how much damage her independent run would do to Obama, but how much of McCain's base would she damage? She'd hurt McCain with the over 55 group, the so called "uneducated hard working whites", and possibly several other groups. Maybe it would be best for the Democratic Party for her just to take her ball and go home? Any ideas?

[Skytouch]

Interesting post octoberxs. Clinton / Lieberman could definitely damage McCain's chances, although I'm guessing McCain would fly into a rage and challenge Clinton to a duel for Lieberman's hand.

Another poster observed that Clinton going independent could purge the democratic party of its centrist bent and enable dems to reclaim the traditional left-progressive high ground. We've gone too many election cycles with GOPs reframing the debate as moderate democrats versus right-wing fringe republicans.

This three-way scenario is risky business but definitely a reflection of the unique times we're in.