It's Her Party and She'll Do What She Wants To

Hillary Clinton is now campaigning in Florida and arguing that the state's delegates should count, along with those from the Michigan primary. This would sound fair enough, unless you know that both Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up after the Democrats agreed that the only states to vote before February 5th ("Super Tuesday") would be Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina (picked because they were relatively small states, representing different demographics). The Democratic Party agreed that votes from the two renegade primaries would not count. The major candidates made an explicit agreement not to campaign in either state. Florida law required that all candidates keep their names on, but Obama and Edwards pulled their names from the Michigan ballot.

Now Clinton is trying to change the rules mid-game. She's arguing that her delegates from Michigan should count after all. (Running essentially unopposed, and with a netroots campaign to get Democrats to cross over and vote for Romney, she still got only 55% of the vote, since 40% voted "uncommitted" and Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel -- and Chris Dodd, who'd already dropped out -- split the remaining 5%.) She's campaigning in Florida with a wink and a nod (doing closed talks and photo ops, not public rallies), while trying to get those delegates to count too. She seems to be banking on the hope that a Florida win, even if only symbolic, will erase Obama's momentum from his massive South Carolina victory.

Now you can argue the right or wrong of the Democratic decision to put teeth into the agreement that the primaries should have some kind of structured sequence, and not just be a mad dash to see who comes earliest. And the Florida situation was created not by state Democrats but by the Republican legislature. But I can find no evidence that Clinton raised objections when the initial decisions were made. And now she's trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Her surrogate Bill overtly supported a similar attempt when allied teachers union officials tried to ban special caucuses on the Nevada strip after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama. Ironically, Clinton won a majority of these caucuses, but her contempt for the rules was the same. She was a team player only when she thought it would benefit her.

We actually saw the same pattern in 2006. In a season when Democratic candidates were scrambling to raise enough to finance an ever-expanding array of competitive races, Clinton made a conscious decision to raise $52 million for a Senate campaign that she could have won in her pajamas, spent $40.8 million (to beat a token opponent who spent less than $6 million), and transferred the rest to her presidential campaign. Only the self-funded Jon Corzine has ever spent more for a Senate race in our history.

You could say she was just playing the game, but Barack Obama and John Edwards, in comparison, campaigned throughout the country to support worthy Democratic candidates, while doing negligible fundraising for themselves. Obama emerged with less than a million in the bank and the Edwards campaign ended up still in debt from 2004. Their top priorities really did seem to be helping other Democrats win a critical election, instead of subordinating all other goals to their own personal futures.

Imagine if Hillary had transferred $20 million into the dozen Congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford's Senatorial campaign, to help close a $5-million gap with Republican Bob Corker. A few extra ads or mailings might well have tipped the balance But Hillary made different decisions. Much as may have been true with her support of a recent Iran vote so reckless that Senator James Webb called it "Dick Cheney's pipe dream," her priority was election-year positioning.

If we look at Clinton's actions throughout this campaign, they consistently put her right to win above broader principles. Even the tears that turned around her New Hampshire campaign seemed to me to be about her frustration that the nomination she thought was her birthright seemed about to slip away. As Frank Rich has written, even her choice to feature Bill Clinton in the campaign as lead attack dog risked bringing up enough old ghosts to sharply increase the likelihood of Republican victory in November. No one runs for president unless they are ambitious, but once you think you have the right to rewrite the rules in mid-course, or subordinate every opportunity of your critical allies to your own personal gain, you set up a precedent unsettlingly like the administration we have just endured for the past seven years. And I don't think we want to go there again.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org

Comments

[KARE]

Hillary is asking for the delegates to be seated, which in the end we all know will happen, but what you fail to cover is that Obama has run an ad that hit 6 million homes in florida, after he pledged not to. That in my mind is a greater violation, than asking votes to be counted.

[jmsc1965]

This is why so many Democrats who thought the world of Bill and Hillary Clinton have soured on her candidacy and have decided that the candidate of the future is Barack Obama. For example, Greg Craig, a long-time Clinton friend and support and legal defender in the impeachment.

[nads2985]

I agree that the Clinton camp is playing politics on this one, but they are right on the merits. It's Nevada in reverse - disenfranchising voters is bad. The Clintons were wrong to do it in Neveada, and the DNC is wrong here (though in Nevada, I'm extremely opposed to the idea of caucusing in the work place - when your a union member, and your boss and union reps see you caucusing for "the wrong candidate", it could have real consequences...)

1) Florida and Michigan Democrats should be able to have a say in the party's nominee

2) The entire nominating process is FUBAR. Michigan and Florida, IMO, were entirely reasonable in wanting an earlier primary so that the contest wouldn't be a fait accompli by time it got them. That being said, we now have the ironic result that the earlier primaries may matter less and the later primaries could decide it all...

3) Do we really want to piss off Democratic activists in two important swing states? We know we will need Florida and Michigan come November, so why antagonize them?

4) Fundraising in florida and Michigan was always allowed. Clinton didn't break that promise (though I think another part of the problem with disenfranchising the voters but allowing campaigns to use them as cash registers is that we are going to piss off people who see the candidates asking for their money but refusing to listen to their votes...). Obama, however, has been running tv advertisements in florida - this is in violation of the pledge they all agreed to.

The DNC royally messed this up. Clinton's motivation is questionable, but she's right on the issue. It's a shame she didn't stake this position out months ago, when the politics behind it weren't so blatant, but better late than never...

[nads2985]

I agree that the Clinton camp is playing politics on this one, but they are right on the merits. They were wrong to try to stop voters from being heard in Nevada (though caucusing with people youre working with and for, where your bosses can see how you vote raises tons of questions...), but they are right here.

1) Florida and Michigan Democrats should be able to have a say in the party's nominee

2) The entire nominating process is FUBAR. Michigan and Florida, IMO, were entirely reasonable in wanting an earlier primary so that the contest wouldn't be a fait accompli by time it got them. That being said, we now have the ironic result that the earlier primaries may matter less and the later primaries could decide it all...

3) Do we really want to piss off Democratic activists in two important swing states? We know we will need Florida and Michigan come November, so why antagonize them?

4) The rules barred campaigning but not fundraising there. Her going to private fundraisers isn't violating the pledge she made. That was always allowed, which is another reason alot of people, myself included, opposed the DNC decision - it turned Florida into a cash register that would have no actual say. This is a recipe for pissing off people who live there, who aren't likely to appreciate being asked for money while simaltaneously being told that their votes don't matter. Obama's campaign, however, actualy violated the pledge - they've been running tv ads in florida.

The DNC royally messed this up. Clinton's motivation is questionable, but she's right on the issue. It's a shame she didn't stake this position out months ago, when the politics behind it weren't so blatant.

[AnninCA]

Hillary Clinton spoke out for Florida and Michigan, both states which support her, by requesting that their delegates count.

It was a small gesture of thanks to those states and to the Democratic workers who support her.

She's very polite in that way. She'll return favors to those who are loyal to her.

It won't be honored by the party. She knew that.

But it's another example of how she is willing to do something she knows will be viewed as "wrong" on behalf of her constinuency.

[MBryant]

I think you have to admire Howard Dean for trying to enforce the agreements and rules of the party regarding primary scheduling and seating of delegates. If someone doesn't take a stand when does this end? Primaries in November a full year before the general election?

This process already takes far too long. What are party rules if they don't have enforcement? It is a crying shame that the process is as broken as it is but it won't get fixed by continuing to bend it. The only way the process (which has resulted in two stolen elections) gets fixed is by someone standing firm for what's right.

On the other hand I think Hillary is surprised by not being the winner apparent at this point. I think she planned to bend the rules in Michigan and Florida figuring she was going to win anyway and once she did win, she'd magananimously welcome the delegates back (since they backed the right horse anyway) - and be the unifier (firing Dean if necessary since she would then be the defacto party leader).

Now she's in a dogfight that's essentially tied and she may NEED these delegates.

[Roshi98]

Obama can be accused of breaking the no-campaign pledge as well since his national ads have been running in Florida, contrary to what the agreement allows.

What fascinates me is that the same people on this board whining about Nevada now think that massive voter disenfranchisement on the part of the DNC is just fine in Michigan and Florida. If the numbers are right, Democratic turnout in Florida could exceed 500k - do you really think that an organization like the DNC can reasonably tell these citizens that their votes don't count?

I'm just asking the question. Defend their position, please.

[standforpeace]

At what point, do American voters insist (at long, long last) that those who are asking us for something (our vote) stop playing us for fools? I'm hoping that it is now. If I were a voter in Florida, I would certainly question why Hillary Clinton did not make her call to count the Florida and Michigan delegates while she was galivanting around Iowa and New Hampshire assuring those voters that she valued and would protect their place as first in the nation. Now that the Iowa and New Hampshire votes are safely counted, I guess those assurances are out the window?

[rbrooks]

I'd like to know how the exclusion of Michigan and Florida from the Democratic primaries came about. Who drove that? How much did the Clintons have to do with that decision, or was it a suicide pact by the Democratic party faction led by Howard Dean? Now that Hillary seems poised to claim the delegates of those two states, is it too late for the party to declare those delegates "uncommitted"? The Clintons should not be allowed to collect them as a reward for their Bush-like disregard for the agreement they made with the other candidates. Surely the party has some control over the Clintons' theft of these delegates.

[musselmanm]

We have had our Nation brought to its knees by one stolen election!

The Clinton gang of Fascists shall not be the next to steal our country.

[Macready]

Great blog . . . thank you . . . bill and hillary are all about bill and hillary . . . they are both behaving as though the country owes them this election . . . the country owes them nothing . . . hillary's voting record says it all . . . she is still the goldwater girl . . .

[strangelet]

Quick question for all those bitching about the existence of superdelegates -- are you a registered Democrat? If, by chance, you are not, then you are not a member of the Democratic Party, and while you are certainly entitled to have your own opinion about the party's nominating methodology, you really have no right to influence it.

Incidentally, if you ARE a Democrat, then you ought to bitch to (I know this is going to sound naive) your county, state, and national chairpersons, perhaps in addition to bloggers.

I expect, and sincerely hope, that the DNC will chuckle heartily at Clinton's trial balloon regarding the MI and FL delegates. If they even appear to consider it seriously, they will not only piss off Obama's supporters, they will totally undermine their own ability to control their own primaries in the future. It is always risky to underestimate the Democratic leadership's ability to step in it, but I really don't think they'll do it for this.

On the other hand, you all (Mr Loeb on down) would help your blood pressure if you could remember that this is a political campaign, not the search for the Holy Grail. As I understand it, Clinton is not advertising in FL, and is attending some fundraisers -- which was what the candidates agreed to. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it illegal, or even unethical.

As to her "hints" about counting the delegates -- it's a competition for delegates; trying to get a freebie doesn't make you Satan. I personally think she made a pretty big mistake by bringing it up, because (1) I don't think she'll get anything out of it, and (2) whether or not she does, it makes her seem desperate, and it's pretty early to be desperate.

Frankly, everybody on this thread should applaud. If technical, legalistic maneuvering pisses off independents, then you should want Clinton to do more of it. If Bill is alienating African-American voters (and Teddy Kennedy), then you should want *more* Bill on the stump.


And relax a little.

[lovethesinner]

Excellent post, Paul. You really put a lot of citical information into focus. Your title really tells the whole story:

It's a question of character, not experience.

[Lis]

Agreed, Paul.

And if I may add one overlooked fact about Hillary's "tears" in New Hampshire, when she started to get "teary-eyed", her exact words were:

"When I see so many opportunities FROM this country..."

FROM???!!!

Shouldn't she have said, "FOR"?

[feelfree]

Mrs. Clinton is campaigning in Florida?

FACT CHECK.

This simply is not true.

She stuck to her pledge not to campaign or run local advertisements.

My understanding is the candidates are allowed to attend fundraisers. She will attend two on Sunday which are NOT public events.

She will return on Tuesday night after the polls are closed to thank her supporters.