Website Set Up By Clinton Campaign To Seek Democratic Convention Delegate Rules Changes
If you wondered what Senator Hillary Clinton’s next step would be in light of her two primary defeats yesterday, you now have an answer: the campaign has set up a new website to press to change Democratic convention rules so she can win by delegates other than those won in contested primaries.
ABC’s Political Punch reports:
This morning brings the news that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has launched a new website where they are announcing how they are officially preparing to make the case that the rules of the Democratic nomination process should be changed.
Among many “facts” they declare are some accurate ones, such as the idea that superdelegates, which in true nomenclatural dexterity they now term “automatic delegates” “are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.”
But then comes this juicy non-fact:
“FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy.”That’s not a fact, that’s an opinion.
And it’s clear evidence (not that there was any mystery about it) that the Clinton campaign is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
We asked this before: has the Democratic party EVER seen anything like this? And will Democrats allow it?
Clinton’s own senior adviser, Harold Ickes, voted as a member of the DNC committee to not recognize these two state delegations because they violated the rules of the primary scheduling process. Now as a Clinton campaign representative he’s making the case that they should count.
And Democrats have been frustrated over this kind of quick-change-artist behavior when it’s done by Bush administration members. MORE:
The Obama people deserve to be tweaked for suggesting that the superdelegates should follow the lead of the regular delegates — that’s not what the rules dictate, either.
But there’s a difference between pressuring/lobbying/strongly suggesting that superdelegates follow the will of regular delegates — that ultimately will be decided by each individual superdelegate — and trying to change the rules of the nominating process.
The Clinton camp is now calling 2208 “the number required for a candidate to secure the nomination with Florida and Michigan included.”
But that’s not the number.
According to the DNC, the number is 2025. And Florida and Michigan don’t get included.
Once again: there is a fundamental credibility issue here. AND:
The three chairs of the Democratic Convention Credentials Committee, which will decide this Michigan and Florida morass, all worked in the administration of Bill Clinton: Former Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, Social Security Administration associate commissioner James Roosevelt Jr., and White House travel consultant Eliseo Roques-Arroyo, as noted yesterday by the Washington Times.
More and more, this reminds me of the Florida recount.
Don’t like the rules? Change the rules.
Count every vote — except the ones for the for the other guy.
If Hillary Clinton doesn’t win Ohio and Texas convincingly and wins by this method look for a President John McCain in the White House come January. Many of the new, young voters will be turned off and she is already losing independent voters in increasing numbers. She can’t win by just getting hard-core, traditional Democrats (Hillary backers and those that give her a pass if she uses this method to secure the nomination) to vote for her in the general election.
UPDATE: A diary writer on Daily Kos contends some Clinton campaign workers are calling delegates already pledged to Obama in Nevada. See THIS POST that we ran yesterday.
36 Responses to “Website Set Up By Clinton Campaign To Seek Democratic Convention Delegate Rules Changes”
Not only is she hurting herself, but the credibility of all female candidates with these incessantly whiney displays. She is setting back women politicians by a couple of decades. It's getting pathetic.
Are you a big guilt by association fan?
No, but Hill, you, and Damozel are doing a good job of raising ID voting to absurd heights, with your constant shilling for her, despite her increasingly Rovian tactics which shd turn any decent person off. Every move Hill makes in the last week reinforces the stereotype that a woman has to whine when things don't go her way, instead of 'taking it like a man.'
Again, it's getting pathetic, so why don't you show you're better than Hill, and decry this BS.
Joe are you serious?
http://www.delegatehub.com/
This website and notion of her campaign to change rules, will be the biggest show of elitism in this countries history.
If Billary wins by super,auto, or back pocket delegate I will vote for John McCain in the general election, I may not care for republican principals, but right now they're party is looking like a true democratic process.
Joe: Hill can do whatever she likes but if she loses Texas, she's toast, and I think she's gonna lose by a wider than 2-3% margin I predicted a day or 2 ago.
My wife and I already early voted, so Hill is down 2, and every Independent I work with or no is voting Obama, and many Republicans are too.
I think, in a year or 2, people will be scratching their heads as to why Rudy and Hill, who seemed shoo-ins 6 mos. ago, both blew their noms w the same tactics.
I think it may be wrong to characterize the way Hillary is behaving as something that reflects poorly on women candidates in general. In fact, I don't see how it reflects badly on women any way, unless people automatically characterize women as acting in such a way. It is more a win at any cost mindset, and reminds me how Joe Lieberman conducted himself after losing the primary in Connecticut.
Actually, this tactic by Clinton isn't whiny, it's ruthless. The Clintons in the early 1990s demonstrated themselves to be more ruthless than Nixon (yes, they managed to make Nixon look good relative to them, insofar as intelligent, observant people were and remain concerned). I don't consider her whiny here for making another Emotional Appeal to Dimmer Dems. It's simply doing whatever she can to succeed. The end justifies the means. Nobody has ever questioned her competence, and in fact her competence combined with her politics is what makes non-liberal Americans respect and fear her as well as revile her frequently because of what she is capable of and willing to attempt.
Ashen Shard, for example, understands completely. “Win at all costs.” She's a big leaguer.
If the Dems can try to steal a general election they lost (complete with lies and worthless emotional appeals — the “conference call” was probably the most sickening performance ever), why is it surprising one of the candidates wants to lay the groundwork for stealing her party's nomination if it appears in danger of being lost?
Michigan and Florida should hold new, complete, real, valid elections now. Otherwise, the rules are obvious. Their delegates must be excluded. They have no “right” [sic] to be “heard” [sic] and in no way would exclusion constitute that famous Dem lie, “disenfranchisement.”
At the start of this page is part of the famous “Conference Call.”
Are the Clintons and someone other than Howard Dean — maybe just one or two others on her campaign team, because nobody in the party leadership would dare join this? — going to do the same kind of “feed the stupid herd” thing before or during the convention?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a22a8b933b9…
Wow, I mean wow. Doesn't her campaign realize how weak this makes them look, trying to change the rule all of a sudden now that they are behind and even including states they purposely sought to exclude before? I don't know whose idea this was but it was a bad one.
Yeah, I don't think this hurts the cause of women in US politics. Quite the opposite. It shows that she isn't going to take any crap from anyone. Unfortunately for her, voters aren't buying into the worth of her unscrupulous tactics.
This has nothing to do with women candidates and everything to do with the Clintons. She looks increasingly desperate every day. I suspect calls for her drop out will grow over the next couple weeks.
This is almost certainly over on March 5. Clinton's camp has admitted as much (if they lose or even barely win either TX or OH). They are highly unlikely to get a big win in TX, and it's looking more and more like they may even lose there. With the Teamsters' Obama endorsement today, Ohio comes a little bit more into play, I believe. They are throwing everything they have into these last couple of weeks. Yes, it's scorched earth, but it's their only chance of staying alive past that date.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, it's also exceptionally damaging to the Dems, Obama, and even in the end, Sen. Clinton and Bill.
Ahh..
Freepers posting “transcripts” for phone calls from 2000.
Good times eh DLS?
Cosmo again living in an alternate reality:
“No, but Hill, you, and Damozel are doing a good job of raising ID voting to absurd heights, with your constant shilling for her, despite her increasingly Rovian tactics which shd turn any decent person off. Every move Hill makes in the last week reinforces the stereotype that a woman has to whine when things don't go her way, instead of 'taking it like a man.'
Again, it's getting pathetic, so why don't you show you're better than Hill, and decry this BS.”
– I hope it's not as cold there as it is in Ohio right now.
Thoughts:
1) People need to learn the difference between facts and statements that use the word “should”.
2) Superdelegates do have the right and responsibility to exercise their judgment on behalf of the Democratic Party and the country, and it's hard to imagine any way in which overruling the party members' selection is going to be good for the Democratic Party. You don't change the rules during the process, but after the nomination is done, the DNC needs to revisit the existence of the superdelegates completely.
3) In some ways, the web site looks like a plea to stay in the race more than anything else.
4) The race needn't be over yet, as Texas and Ohio should have still been winnable by Clinton, but the campaign looks like it's blowing up.
“Good times eh DLS?”
While some may badly misinterpret the use of that link, what I wrote in addition to posting the link is self-explanatory.
Don't forget that the pledged delegates will be divvied up by Clinton and Obama and then Pennsylvania is also contestible and is more like Clinton's last gasp.
I do like the motif of Clinton needing to do well in Texas, her Alamo.
As for her site, here it is. As the risk of being badly misinterpreted again, I'll note once more (as I did on another thread a while ago) that this is a lesson for readers, as liberals of the elite kind have argued for years for “at-large” seats in Congress (normally the House) to represent the “national interest” as an improvement (in their eyes; it is additional centralization of power in DC) as well as a counter-move against local orientation by House members and local-area spending in excess. Such at-large positions in a nation-wide body and their advocacy have always been elitist as well as liberal. (Conservatives have avoided this as a rule, instead have merely defended the nature of the Senate, decried the going to direct election of Senators, and include related remarks about abolishing the Electoral College, etc. Meanwhile liberals who are elitist toward the House have wanted to change the Senate to “democratize” it or make it more like the House. The original, real topic here, though, is that many liberals have advocated “national” “at-large” seats and you're seeing the problems currently with something similar insofar as the super-delegates are concerned. The Clinton site below discusses super-delegates, not only the idiocy about trying to force Texas and Florida's tainted delegates into the convention.)
http://www.delegatehub.com/
If Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Democrats will be voting for Sen. McCain in November.
Holly, do you even look at polls, or do you just ignore them if they are not positive about your candidate? If Hillary is the nominee, independents will swing decisively for McCain, making him president. Obama, on the other hand, would take those votes and hold on to most Democratic voters, while likely garnering some Republicans. Up to this point, poll after poll has shown this. If any candidate is going to alienate Democratic voters, it will be Hillary since she is the one who is trying to change the rules because they do not favor her at this moment.
Anyone who would vote for John McCain, knowing his full record, would vote for him no matter who the Democratic nominee is. That's why they're not Democrats. They love people who feel at home with the Religious Right. They love people who are loyal supporters of the current Administration. They want a candidate whose entire campaign so far has been that he won't change anything from the current Administration, from Supreme Court nominees to the Iraq war.
Holly the numbers don't bear your assertion out. Look at the primary voter numbers. The Democrats and Obama are outdrawing the Republicans by about 50%. For everyone of the voters you claim to exist there is a greater number of NEW Democratic voters to counter those you claim to support McCain. GOTV depends on voter enthusiasm, the Democrats have it the Republicans don't .
My guess would be that Holly has in mind, not the independents who have been swinging Obama's way, but instead Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama, but it's just a guess. I understand the sentiment from the perspective that we've had many Obama supporters say they'd stay home or vote for McCain if Clinton wins. While supporter animosity has grown and grown as this Democratic campaign comes closer to the final tipping point, polls I've seen have shown that most Democrats are supportive overall of both candidates in the 70% range. From a larger perspective, Clinton and Obama share about 85% agreement on policy, while their agreement with McCain must be in the 20% range or so. I would hope supporters of either candidate would vote for as close to their heart as they can, instead of letting rising hatred take over.
Rudi – I am not questioning this “For everyone of the voters you claim to exist there is a greater number of NEW Democratic voters to counter those you claim to support McCain. GOTV depends on voter enthusiasm, the Democrats have it the Republicans don't” not as a premise but rather looking for back-up because this is exactly what I was wondering about in reading Holly's comment.
I believe as she does that people who supported Hillary will go for McCain because they find him to be closer to what she is than Obama. You are suggesting that that number is outpaced/will be outpaced by the new voters Obama was able to draw in for the primaries and the numbers who will vote in the general. But do we really know that or want to rely on that?
There's no question that the Dems as a party are outdrawing the GOP in the primaries but then they don't have much to vote for, now or earlier. Once the GOP has a target in sight, whomever it is, do you really believe that their GOTV will simply not go into motion and will let themselves be trampled? I don't. Not for a minute. GOP voters skew older and older voters skew as extremely reliable.
I think it's extremely risky to not expect the GOP to fight tooth and nail for whatever disaffected voters they'll be able to find once the nominees are set.
What Holly has mentioned has been mentioned in plenty of other places. And the fact is, no one really knows.
It is really unfortunate that the animosity has gotten that bad. You have Hillary supporters making unsupported accusations of misogyny toward Obama. You have Obama supporters saying that they will vote for McCain if Hillary wins through super-delegates and/or by changing the rules. I think it has to do with the similarity of their actual policy positions. So, people are looking for differences in character and approach, and that makes criticisms much more personal.
Ashen Shard: 'In fact, I don't see how it reflects badly on women any way, unless people automatically characterize women as acting in such a way.'
Hello? They do think of women that way, which is why I wrote: 'Every move Hill makes in the last week reinforces the stereotype that a woman has to whine when things don't go her way, instead of 'taking it like a man.'
DLS: Whininess and ruthlessness are not mutually opposing things.
'If the Dems can try to steal a general election they lost'
Just when you get close to reality, Bizarro has to bring you back in!
Jill: bad attempts at humor don't add a thing to the convo, but only heighten your Hillarization. Next.
Holly: 'If Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Democrats will be voting for Sen. McCain in November.'
So you, Jill, and DLS vying for most out of touch person on TMV, eh? First, Your statement is true only if Hillary Clinton is subbed for Obama. Few Dems will vote for the psychotic war hawking of McCain, and Obama has already drawn millions of R's into his campaign.
So whose freezing now, Jill?
Ashen: 'Holly, do you even look at polls, or do you just ignore them if they are not positive about your candidate?'
She does look at the polls, but on Hillaryworld, folk like she, Damozel, and Jill constitute the polled.
Jill: 'I believe as she does that people who supported Hillary will go for McCain because they find him to be closer to what she is than Obama.'
Check out the similarities of the voting records. Hill's folk will go for O. But, thanks for the update from Hillaryworld.
I do find it interesting that people who support Clinton and therefore typically are pro-choice and against a gay marriage amendment ban would vote for McCain who opposes the first and supports the second. But of course those are only a couple of the many issues that Clinton and Obama supporters care about.
Paca: 'I do find it interesting that people who support Clinton and therefore typically are pro-choice and against a gay marriage amendment ban would vote for McCain who opposes the first and supports the second.'
They don't. That's sour grapes from the Hillary Vintners. Add in the war, and very, very few Hill Chillers will go Mac.
I am shocked that no one has blamed Rove for her tactics yet.
Now that you mention it, Austin…
I'd like to make a joke something like “I'm shocked that no one has blamed Hillary yet for his” since Hillary and the Clintons were like the right's boogeyman for years, but since it is Hillary's campaign, she actually is responsible this time.
Then they're not Democrats, are they?
Jill,
As I was trying to say to Holly and as pacatrue said, you can only consider McCain to be close to Hillary if the only issue you look at is Iraq. McCain has spent his entire run for the nomination trying to be a Bush clone, including cozying up to the people he once condemned on the religious right. He has sworn that he would work to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He has promised that his Supreme Court nominees would be Consider this:
And yet millions of voters who would vote for Hillary would vote for McCain? Please.
That was directed to Holly, who said, “If Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Democrats will be voting for Sen. McCain in November.”
What does that mean, even if he keeps racking up a higher percentage of the primary votes, we should arrange it so that another candidate gets the nom? Seriously?
Look, I was never into HRC. Partially, because I think mandates are a bad idea. Also, I think her husband wasn't as good for the poor or the Black community as he is remembered to be. Her vision for the country seems to be a return to that time and I think we have enough prisons, thanks.
But the absolute biggest problem I have are with the campaign tactics. It's as if she does not care what happens to the party as long as she gets the delegates. Statements like the one you just made indicate that her followers might not either.
After NH, when Obama could have easily become a flash in the pan, I did a gut check and realized that, if only because of Choice and the Supreme Court, I've got to vote for the Dem. No matter what I think of HRC right now, it would be short sighted and unserious to do otherwise. I'll even vote for her if she gets the nom by way of shenanigans. But see, I'm a Democrat.
Jill, does Hillary have a lot of pro-life supporters? McCain has been consistently against choice.
Wow, what a dialogue. A few thoughts:
I look at Hill's record and what she has accomplished and I'd really like to support her but…. I've said several times before that I don't support her because of her tactics (and some of her votes in the Senate). She is polarizing, secretive and willing to do anything, including turn the Dems against each other, to get the nomination. It is ruthless and these tactics are the same ones that Bush uses (and Rove). This is the Washington political environment she “grew-up” in and helped perfect. This is the only way she knows how to operate and she's operating this way. Sorry, but just look at the facts…
I think it's interesting that Jill, Holly and others think that a lot of Dems will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. I think they are right and as Jill said, no one knows for certain.
Not to insert race and gender into this race (but it can't be helped, really)… In this country there are still a lot of people who would vote for a man over a woman. And there are a lot of people who would vote for a white man over a black man. Then there are all those people who would vote for McCain because they like his positions (such as staying in Iraq indefinitely) better than Obama (who wants a measured pullout). And, to repeat (more or less) what I just said… as Jill said, no one is certain how this will play out.
It's definitely an interesting race with a white man, a white woman and a black man as the three front runners. (I'm not counting Hillary out just yet, even if it's looking that way.)
BTW: on CNN last night they said that for Hillary to pull even with Obama for delegates, she would have to win both TX and OH by 65/35 (Hillary/Obama). Which means she would need to stay even with him in the rest of the states to maintain that.
So yeah, if she can't pull off TX and OH, then her last real shot is persuading the superdelegates. PA won't help of she loses TX and OH.
Jim: If you've read Holly's, Jill's, and Damozel's posts the last few weeks, you'll see that where Hillary is concerned, reason makes no appearance.