Posted on 01/26/2008 8:51:04 AM PST by canuck_conservative
Hillary Clinton has issued a call to retroactively seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida that were ousted for holding their primaries earlier than allowed. She does so in the language of party unity:
“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.
Of course, this is complicated somewhat by the fact that she ran unopposed in Michigan — because her opponents followed the rules and took their names off the ballot and she did not — and is expected to win Florida easily.
Robert Prather observed in the previous post, “I suspect that this is only the beginning of the Clintons’ shenanigans.” Quite right.
And this view isn’t just coming from the Clinton Derangement Syndrome infected Right Wing Conspiracy engaging in the Politics of Personal Destruction because they Hate Strong Women.
From the Obama campaign:
“No one is more disappointed that Florida Democrats will have no role in selecting delegates for the nomination of the party’s standard bearer than Senator Obama. When Senator Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she made it clear that states like Michigan and Florida that wouldn’t produce any delegates, ‘don’t count for anything.’ Now that Senator Clinton’s worried about losing the first Southern primary, she’s using Florida for her own political gain by trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred. Senator Clinton’s own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a ‘contest for delegates’, and Florida is a contest that offers zero. Whether it is Barack Obama’s record, her position on Social Security, or even the meaning of the Florida Primary, it seems like Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election. When he is the nominee, Barack Obama will campaign vigorously in Florida and Michigan to put them in the Democratic column in 2008.”
Many prominent left-of-center bloggers concur.
Josh Marshall declares, “The Clinton camp really needs to be shut down on this new gambit of theirs to muscle the party and the other candidates into seating the Michigan and Florida delegate slates” and argues that you “don’t change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another.” (An argument I seem to recall having heard before some seven-odd years ago.) As Joe Gandelman points out, Clinton made that argument herself months ago.
Matt Yglesias dubs this “Calvinball” and argues, “There was a time and a place to stand up for the Michigan and Florida primaries, but she didn’t do it.” Tim Dickinson proclaims it, “like changing the rules in the middle of a basketball game to count the pre-game layup drills in the final score.”
Ezra Klein warns, “This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart.”
She’s doing so right before Florida, to intensify her good press in the state, where Obama is also on the ballot. And since this is a complicated, internal-party matter that sounds weird to those not versed in it (of course Michigan and Florida should count!), she’s adding a public challenge that, if the other Democrats deny, will make them seem anti-Michigan and Florida.
But if this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn’t contest those states because they weren’t going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC’s procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It’s as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama’s victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate.
Marc Ambinder argues that this proclamation, coming just before Tuesday’s vote in Florida, essentially violates her pledge not to campaign in Florida. (Marshall, correctly, makes the same point about her leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan.)
Ron Chusid believes this a continuation of Clinton’s “dirty politics.” Robert Farley proclaims it “pretty appalling” and a “nasty little power grab.” Marcy Wheeler calls it “bullshit.”
Not all of the Netroots feel this way.
Big Tent Liberal observes that, as a technical matter, the party didn’t require the candidates to take their names off the ballots in Michigan and that they couldn’t do so in Florida without dropping out of the race entirely. Further, the rules of the game allow the convention delegates to reinstate these delegates.
This is true, so far as it goes. But there’s a difference between the spirit of the law and its letter. Both of Clinton’s serious opponents honored a pledge to take their name off the Michigan ballot in order to comply with their agreement not to “campaign or participate” in primaries held before the allowed dates.
It’s also true, as many commenters have argued, that we always knew the Florida and Michigan delegates would eventually be seated. But there’s a stark difference between doing it as a gesture of party unity after a nomination is wrapped up versus doing it in the heat of the race as a campaign stunt.
The unmitigated gall at attempting to simultaneously change to rules to her advantage and yet claim to be doing it for the good of the party is so amazingly Clintonian that one has to be at least a bit impressed. For Democrats who believe that they keep losing national elections to Republicans because they’re just not willing to play rough enough, this has to inspire hope.
One has to wonder at the desperation of this move. Ezra is right at the possible damage this could do to the party. Yet, Clinton had to be the favorite to win the nomination, anyway, even without resorting to such tactics, since the Super Delegates are going to go her way, overwhelmingly, unless Obama runs away with the race from here on out. Maybe she knows something we don’t.
In the immortal words of Jean Luc Picard, make it so!
In the immortal words of John Crichton (from the tv series Farscape): “Can I get a H*LL, YEAH!”
HAHAHA! Could it be that the Dims are waking up?
This is typical Clinton behavior - ignore the rules, change the rules to suit them... It is a sign of the slippage of their power that people are starting to be willing to call them on it.
I wonder how the moonbats are taking this? I would assume they are very divided over this.
A blind person saw this coming back when the DNC first stripped Michigan of its delegates and the candidates took their solidarity pledge to skip Michigan (except for the “whoops, somehow I got stuck on the ballot” move by the Clintons). I would say a dead person saw that coming but that gets too entangled with the rollcall of Dim voters.
The big news here is that the MSM is no longer willing to look the other way when the Clintons commit outrage after outrage. But where were they from 1992-2000?
I just keep thinking about how the presidential campaign ended for the *last* junior Senator from New York to run for the White House 40 years ago.
Shirley, lightning wouldn’t strike twice would it?
THAT would be hugh and series!!! ;)
Rules only apply to other people, not the Clintons.
And aren’t there a lot of black people in Michigan and Florida who didn’t vote because Obama passed those States up? So they and the other people who didn’t bother to vote are going to be ignored?
Has the MSM picked up on this story at all? Any cites?
I expect they'll be seated only if it doesn't affect the outcome of the nomination.
Ye Gods, it’s the chad thing again in sheep’s clothing.
no, harpie’s clothing :)
Wow, I’m impressed, the Clintons have their own adjective now to describe their tactics, and everybody understands what that adjective means. The author of the article describes such actions as “Clintonian.”
I certainly saw it coming and you are gracious not to insult that Baltimore voting block known as Chicago’s cemetaries.
“A blind person saw this coming back when the DNC first stripped Michigan of its delegates and the candidates took their solidarity pledge to skip Michigan (except for the “whoops, somehow I got stuck on the ballot” move by the Clintons). I would say a dead person saw that coming but that gets too entangled with the rollcall of Dim voters.”
True... Anyone who claims this is shocking, unexpected, or unbelievable is naive or flat out dishonest. I’ve been saying it for months, and so have other posters. There is no way the DNC could justify refusing to seat two entire states at their convention - it would be a disaster.
It is sickening how the media always give them a pass.
Hillary Clinton Trying To Steal The Nomination?
Does a bear poop in the woods?
“I just keep thinking about how the presidential campaign ended for the *last* junior Senator from New York to run for the White House 40 years ago.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe you refer to a gentleman who had served as attorney general under his brother’s administration and in doing so earned the eternal enmity of organized crime. The current senator from New York is probably the sweetheart of organized crime and therefore in no danger.
Lucy Hillbilly and Charlie Obama..
Waht a shock and surprise that would be!
I believe the operative word here would be 'Disenfanchised'... no?
Oh wait, only pubbies have that kind of power...nevermind...
It's 1968 all over again. I was there.
Dump the Hump.
It wasn’t anyone connected with ‘organized crime’ that knocked off your abovementioned gentleman,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not if you believe the official version, I am no longer confident about any official government information. I don’t expect to ever be certain about either of the Kennedy assassinations.
Well let’s face it, Sirhan Sirhan wasn’t talking with a Sicilian accent, true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That sounds rather witty but you are well aware that it is not that simple. I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened but I no longer tell myself that I DO know just because I have heard the official version.
“Official Version”?
OK, here’s what we know:
a.) At approximately 12:16 am on 5 June 1968, Sirhan Sirhan stepped in front of Bobby Kennedy and by some accounts, shouted ‘Kennedy, you son-of-a-b*tch!’,
b.) Sirhan Sirhan then pumped 4 .22 bullets into RFK.
c.) Sirhan Sirhan was literally caught in the act, red handed, dead to rights, and was captured on the spot.
d.) One of Sirhan Sirhan’s diary entries stated: “My determination to eliminate RFK is becoming more and more of an unshakable obsession. RFK must die. RFK must be killed. Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated. .... Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June 1968.”
e.) June 5, 1968 was the one year anniversary of the Six Day War that Israel won (and RFK had strongly supported Israel).
f.) Sirhan Sirhan was a disgruntled Palestinian, some have called him the first Arab terrorist to commit a political assassination on U.S. soil.
g.) Sirhan Sirhan confessed to murdering RFK, but like many murdering scumbags, has recanted his confession and wants a “new trial”.
Are there conspiracy theories suggesting alternate ways and motives that RFK was murdered?
Unquestionably. Are they right? Perhaps.
But the above facts ‘a’ thru ‘g’ cannot be refuted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.