1/25/2008
Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Convention
“I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.
“I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.
“I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.
“I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.”
I certainly hope that no more of our elected officials endorse Clinton. Tell ya what Niki, you keep quite and I’ll lend you a hand when you face November 2008.
Ya, it’s like that.
In NH, they have been working their asses off to keep their status as “first in the nation primary.” Well that may be big woopdy-do down here, but having been “up thereya” for the last few months campaigning for Obama; I can tell you that NH will be pissed about this fanagle.
<
p>Clinton is like Romney for chrissakes. Her position is based on political expedience, not conviction. I find it sickening, to say the least.
Did MI or FL try to jump ahead of NH? No — they just didn’t want to wait ’til Feb 5. Furthermore, NH’s “first in the nation” status, along with IA’s privileged position, both need to be ended. The DNC should be ashamed of itself for playing along with this charade this cycle; I certainly hope Dean’s got the guts to do something about it for next time.
<
p>In any event, this is inside baseball — no one in the wider world gives a crap about it. In fact, most non-political junkies I talk to are shocked to learn that MI and FL have been penalized in the way that they have, and think that the punishment should be reduced or lifted. Clinton’s position seems perfectly reasonable to me, even if it does obviously benefit her in terms of the delegate count.
While I agree with your sentiment, I think John’s problem with Clinton may be in the timing. Where were these righteous stamements about MI and FL when she was asking for New Hampshire’s vote? Not that it’s easy to criticize someone for side-stepping contentious opinions while campaigning in a must-win state. But Clinton must realize that her statement carries almost no power to persuade the DNC, because its timing allows them to dismiss it as a pander.
<
p>So one could conclude fairly that she is showing weak leadership on this issue.
<
p>Then again, people must remember that Presidents lead; candidates campaign.
her name was on the MI ballot all along. is that not statement enough, or must it be explained in more words? i dont mean to be snarky, but she didnt exactly run a stealth write-in campaign in MI or anything.
She’s definitely played middle-ground on the issue, and frankly, I like that she’s playing to win. I don’t want my candidate cheating, but I do want my candidate to do everything within the rules to win the damn election. Travel the high road as POTUS, but make sure you get there because I certainly don’t expect a GOP POTUS to take the high road.
<
p>I think that is true for Florida, except maybe they were trying to schedule it the same day as the South Carolina primary, but even if so they just moved it 3 days early if so…
<
p>But Michigan moved their primary for January 15th, ahead of the Nevada caucus on January 19th and the New Hampshire primary on January 22nd. They did this fully knowing that New Hampshire by state law must hold its primary a week before any similar contest in other states, and Iowa would also move up in reaction. Michigan’s actions forced the primary calendar two weeks earlier than intended and in the process flouted the rules they agreed to just a few months before.
<
p>I do think Florida should not have been docked to the same extent, but Michigan was clearly attacking the seriousness of the DNC’s presidential selection process, and effectively bet their citizens voting rights on a small chance to get attention, and almost forced the 2008 primary into 2007.
<
p>I do think both states will be seated at the convention in some capacity, but it was a stupid move on their part.
They will look you straight in the eye while they disembowel you, rape your wife, put your male offspring to the sword, and sell your daughters into slavery. Then deny it and everyone believes them!
<
p>Anyone that can pull that off must have something.
If you be taken seriously, make an intelligent argument. If you want to be laughed at, write this kind of stuff. Personally, I did find it funny, so, I mean, thanks. I bet a lot of other readers also thought it was ridiculous. đŸ™‚ But you come off like Rush Limbaugh when he had to admit that he was a drug addict, or “Wide Stance” Craig when he admitted he tried to solicit sex in a public restroom — comical, not convincing.
The nomination is going to be brokered or very close to brokered and she is going to need everything she gets, including the Michigan ones who won’t be seated as of now, to win.
The drone of cheerleader could rile any giant, sleeping or not.
<
p>Thanks for keeping them on their toes up there.
Jack
Hillary’s cleaning up in California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. She’s got a wide lead in superdelegates. Obama can’t survive on ties in Iowa and Nevada, and slim victories in South Carolina and Illinois.
I expect HRC to do much better on the supahdelegates, but if she doesn’t take 50% of the elected delegates, we get into an awkward situation. I wonder what will happen then, if anything at all…
I think Clinton’s got an advantage in superdelegates, but Obama’s got the advantage in the “extra” delegates from the more congressional districts he’s won even when not winning the whole state. I think the two effects might cancel each other out.
<
p>Unless something dramatically changes (such as if Feb5 looking more like the SurveyUSA poll than the State House News poll and Clinton sweeps it), it is very likely that the two leading candidates will have around 40%+ each with Edwards holding the balance, going into the Pennsylvania primary in April if not the convention itself.
Odds still favor somebody getting 50%, especially as it appears that Edwards can’t get 20% in his home state.
The problem with and consequences of not seating Florida and Michigan delegates at the Democratic NATIONAL Convention has less to do with the inter-party battles and quite a lot to do with the November final. To cut Florida and Michigan (battleground states) out of the process as punishment is just ridiculous and dangerous folly. We need Florida and Michigan Democrats shoulder to shoulder with Democrats in all states when we leave the Colorado Convention.
<
p>Anyone who thinks dissing FL and MI “to show them who is boss” and to placate NH, is deluding themselves into thinking that the Nov. election will be easy to win.
<
p>It’s time for regional or national primaries…end the Iowa/NH nonsense.
Look under damned.
<
p>The DNC made the rules, going back will give the GOP a filp-flop argument. As ridiculous as that maybe, they will say that Dems don’t have the balls to stick to it. They will apply this to some matter of national policy, likely national security.
<
p>Yes, we need FL and MI. I don’t want Dems in those states staying home in November, so please tell us how to thread this needle.
<
p>Of course, Clinton is a shyster for pulling this stunt, but that is a lesser point in this sub-thread.
The Convention delegates have the right (and responsibility) to change detrimental rules and to decide what deloegations will be seated. They may exercise control over DNC rulings that they deem inappropriate or detrimental to the party.
<
p>When Ted Kennedy was trying to make a last effort to defeat Carter, his supporters tried to change the FC-3 rule. When that effort failed at the convention, his quest ended.
<
p>In many conventions some states have sent not one, but two delegations, each requesting recognition and the right to be seated. The whole Convention voted on those decisions.
<
p>As for your last point, “Clinton is a shyster”…I am sure you did not mean what you wrote as the word “shy-ster” is derived from the word “shylock” meaning a ruthless moneylender…taked from the Shakespearean character, Shylock, the Jewish Money Lender…I think it is a perjorative term used to demean a whole religious group and surely not appropriate here.
<
p>How about this: “Of course, Clinton is a saavy Democrat for calling for a complete and unified convention that will not end up crippling us in November.”
sorry for those typos, need to find my glasses…
Something like that, Prof.
<
p>Clinton is exercising her keen instinct for the “nooks and crannies” of stataus quo politics.
<
p>I am amazed at how many Progressive High Info Voters can clearly see how the GOP gets many “conservative, working class” or “redneck” voters to gosheepishly to the slaughter house.
<
p>LOL. The same “enlightened, chattering class” or “starbuck Democrats” are in lock step with the newest iteration of Clintonism.
<
p>No Do-overs!
Exit polls seem to indicate that the “enlightened chattering class” of “Starbuck Democrats” are the base of Sen. Obama’s support this year. The folks with incomes under $50K, blue collar, and older women are siding up with Sen. Clinton.
<
p>Clinton is exercising political strategy…and Obama is doing the same thing…only difference is when she does it she gets called any number of negative things, and when he (or Axelrod) does it, he’s a political genius. Can’t have it both ways.
Both are doing the same thing, and both are rightly criticized for it. The only difference is, Obama is criticizing not only her experience, but the “Clinton experience.” You can’t run on experience and not have THE experience criticized.
<
p>Meanwhile, Clinton has honed in on slumlords and Illinois no-show votes. BFD. Two words for you: Ben Laguer. If you rmember this slum lord’s name in two years, I’ll be “shocked and awed.”
I think this demographic splits up 60/40.
Change gets 60%. These are the Edwards and Obama supporters who have made it, yet the fire from New Haven and Chicago still burns in them.
<
p>The other 40% are tits deep in Clintonism. They see their trophy house needs an illegal to rake and keep the in-ground skimmed. No worrys. They got theirs and sold out.
<
p>
Low info voters or “rote” Democrats are too busy sluggin’ it out on the inclining tread mill. They are barred from inclusion in the political process, except for the cattle call to the voting booths, because they don’t have enough discretionary time to spend “getting involved.”
<
p>NOW, I PRONOUNCE MYSELF GUILTY OF GROSS GENERALIZATION.
<
p>Yet, the Gaussian Curve captures my point well enough.
If the snobby, ignorant attitude you have expressed about older women and working class people is indicative of Barack Obama’s supporters, then I am so glad I am supporting Hillary Clinton. Most of the people I have met working their hearts out on campaigns and taking the time to understand the issues that are at stake are working class and lower middle class people, probably because they are the segment of our society that actually is affected the most by stupid policy making. They also can spot a fake a mile away. That is why they are supporting Hillary Clinton. To borrow a phrase from John Kerry’s presidential campaign (a phrase that never really fit him), Hillary is the real deal.
The really pissed go with Edwards. Bah!
Lacerate republicans for alleged skull duggery yet look away and give tacit consent to the Clinton’s for their malevolent fratricide. It’s actually breathtaking. Talk about ammunition for the republican arsenal!
I don’t know where you got your information about the origin of the word shyster. The Random House Unabridge Dictionary confirms my hunch about the origin, based on five years of study of German:
<
p>
<
p>(emphasis added)
<
p>I always assumed this word crossed over into American slang from Yiddish. It’s not a nice word, certainly, but I don’t think it is intended as an insult to Jews or any other religious group.
Anarchy is a beautiful thing. One wonders if the Clinton slash and burn campaign wasn’t planning this two years ago. Just a big chess board. Obama wins S. Carolina, which feeds into the fears of rsacist America and it dooms him in the general. The Clinton’s are real nice people. The end justifies the means. Is that what we have come to?
I bet you also have a radio transmitting inside your head?
… not allow their votes to count until after the nomination has been decided (thus, just a formalistic “seating”), or assign their votes to candidates in the same percentage as all of the states that conducted valid primaries.
<
p>I agree that regional primaries are better, and that the current system is idiotic, but seating the delegations from MI and FL after several of the candidates agreed not to campaign there is (a) comparable to handing the Convention to Clinton, who is the one who played dirty, and (b) will badly damage what remains of the Democratic Party. The latter may not be such a bad thing, if you don’t like the Party, but the former will just enrage everyone who voted for anyone other than Clinton and make it even harder than it already is likely to be for her to reach out to the supporters of her opponents — people she must have, for money and for votes, if she hopes to win in November.
how about telling core voters in key states that they’re not wanted as a means on damaging the party? stupid rules should be trashed. did you never chew gum while in school?
Of course I agree with you that they should not have excluded MI and FL. As I said, the current system is idiotic. But if the Democrats can’t enforce their own rules, then next time around there won’t be any rules: each state will do whatever it wants. Maybe that’s a good thing, but it will weaken the national party.
And my party is guilty as well.
<
p>WHY DO POLITICAL PARTIES THINK THEY SHOULD DECIDE WHEN SOVERIGN STATES HOLD POLITICAL CONVNENTIONS?
<
p>Maybe it’s because I belong to a Third Party (we finally overtook them Whigs!) but isn’t the timing and setting dates for elections the purview of the Secretaries of State and the states involved? the NH SoS has extraordinary powers granted him by his legislature to ensure NH’s status as first. But the legislature gave him that power – not the parties, even if they comply with that power.
<
p>There are Greens, Libertarians, hell, probably Communists – there are MANY bona fide political parties. Why should the tango of elephant and ass make decisions for states? ESPECIALLY when it has been proven as futile as King Canute’s command to hold bak the seas?
Do you mean primaries and caucuses? Either way, states aren’t sovereign. They have some sovereign powers through our constitution, but do not have sovereignty despite what George Wallace and his ilk try to believe.
The political party is it’s own entity. Why shouldn’t it decide when to hold it’s election? As far as I’m concerned, a political party should be allowed to hold it’s election [primary/caucus/whatever] on a Wednesday afternoon from 10am-8:30 pm for Hispanic disabled males over 55 and a Sunday morning 5am – 6am for everyone else. The state should have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
<
p>I also think that the state parties should have to pay for their election.
<
p>Now, if the state parties and the state want to work together to hold one election and save money, go for it. I’d also encourage the parties to keep the same time range and locations as the general election for primaries [as well as on a Tuesday].
<
p>It’s not a government issue — political parties aren’t government entities, and they don’t represent the people.
And that said – the reason the states get to say when they wish to hold them instead of the parties is that the states must pay for them.
<
p>Until your suggestion is adopted, and the state parties pay.
One of Josh Marshall’s readers has accurately described this move, I think. Hillary knows she can’t win South Carolina, so she’s pushing up attention for Florida’s primary, which is the big one before Super Tuesday. After all, if SC is going to be bad news for her, and the polling looks that way, her campaign needs to give the media something different to talk about…
<
p>voila! Florida. Where Hillary will win. She’s got Senator Bill Nelson’s team on her side now.
And you know what that’s called?…..A good strategic move.
Politics 101 in motion.
It was also smart for Clinton to contest MI and FL. The Obama and Edwards campaigns should be ashamed of themselves for being so weak.
Stop! Stop!
<
p>Please Stop!
<
p>Please Don’t Stop!
Brilliant!
The only thing the party should do is set an absolute earliest date, like January 1st. Then leave it completely up to the states to determine their own dates. There should also be a deadline, like say December 1st, by which a date must be set and any state that hasn’t set its own date by then can have it on the first Tuesday in June. IA and NH would not necessarily be privileged (although as a political junkie living close to the state line I like NH’s position) and the party could also give incentives, such as bonus delegates, for scheduling later.
<
p>As a matter of principle all candidates should support Hillary’s call to seat all delegates. Otherwise you are punishing the people for the decisions of party insiders. I certainly would campaign in any state with delegates potentially at stake. The national party has no business telling candidates where they can and cannot campaign.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton:
I bet people from Michigan and Florida do not view it that way. “No one is more disppointed… than Senator Obama.” but there is nothing he can do about it? Is that really his position? What happened to “Yes we can?” What happened to his whole thing about change?