Clinton team pushing for "end-around" on Delegates

LoyaltyisaCurse · February 17th, 2008, 12:04 AM

Clinton aide urges seating delegates

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Sat Feb 16, 8:14 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass.

In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised — before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions.

Campaigning in Wisconsin after Ickes' remarks, Clinton echoed his contention that a suitable arrangement could be worked out to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations.

"The rules provide for a vote at the convention to seat contested delegations," she said. "This goes back to the 1940s in my memory. There is nothing unusual about this. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination until June. Usually it takes awhile to sort all this out. That's why there are rules. If there are contested delegations, the convention votes on it."
Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting. Clinton won the primary vote in Michigan and Florida, and now she wants those votes to count.

"There's been no change," Ickes said. "I was not acting as an agent of Mrs. Clinton. We had promulgated rules and those rules said the timing provision ... provides for certain sanctions, automatic sanctions as a matter of fact, if a state such as Michigan or Florida violates those timing provisions."

"With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt I had an obligation to enforce them," he said.

Clinton won after all the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in either state because they violated the party rules. Clinton, who flew into Florida on primary eve but did not hold a public rally, tried to argue that Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois had violated the pledge by airing a national ad campaign that also showed on Florida television stations.

Ickes' dual positions on the issue illustrate some of the internal division within the party as Clinton and Obama run neck-in-neck in the Democratic presidential race.

Some Democratic leaders have expressed concern that the tight contest might ultimately hinge on the positions of some 700 party insiders known as superdelegates. Civil rights leaders also have been somewhat split on whether failing to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates would unfairly disenfranchise minority voters.

As of Saturday, the delegate count stood at 1,280 for Obama and 1,218 for Clinton. If the DNC were to award Michigan and Florida's 313 delegates based on the vote in their primaries, she would be ahead because she won both states.

On Saturday, Ickes reiterated the campaign's view that new "redo" votes in Florida and Michigan aren't necessary. He said many superdelegates are elected lawmakers or governors who are supposed to exercise their independent judgment to vote contrary to public opinion if they believe another candidate has a better chance of winning.

In response, the Obama campaign said Ickes' viewpoint runs counter to democratic principles.

"The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination — attempt to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters or change the rules they agreed to at the 11th hour in order to seat nonexistent delegates from Florida and Michigan," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. "The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics that could undermine Democrats' ability to win the general election."

Ickes, however, expressed confidence that DNC Chairman Howard Dean will work out a solution to Michigan and Florida's stripped delegates and that there will be no delegate fight at the Democratic National Convention in August, predicting that Clinton will have the nomination locked up shortly after primaries and caucuses end on June 7.

"We hope the national chairman will engage the Democratic leadership of both of those states and work out a suitable compromise," Ickes said, stressing that neither the candidates nor the Democratic party will be well-served by a "bitter fight" that lasts into the convention.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/...rats_delegates

Toro · February 17th, 2008, 06:23 AM

He campaign agreed back in October that votes from Florida and Michigan will not count. She won the two states. Sounds like sour grapes to me...

AZZenny · February 17th, 2008, 07:34 AM

You know if Obama had won those states she'd be screaming bloody murder not to let them in (and he'd probably be talking about them having been disenfranchised.)

If they make the difference in the final choice of candidate there's no way to seat them and let them participate without absolutely infuriating a large part of the Dem electorate. That'd be a great way to run for election -- at least it would be clear that neither Dem or GOP candidate has a stitch of integrity at that point.

UncleChris · February 17th, 2008, 08:19 AM

Is there anyone here who actually believed that come convention time, Michigan's and Florida's delgates would not be counted (regardless of who won them)?

Folster · February 17th, 2008, 09:55 AM

This feels weird, but I completely agree with Al Sharpton on this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAiTyAMne3M

Shane H · February 17th, 2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

Is there anyone here who actually believed that come convention time, Michigan's and Florida's delgates would not be counted (regardless of who won them)?

I didnt believe they wouldnt be counted(Florida's). I had no clue Michigan was in the same boat.

It really doesnt make any sense. Who cares when a state wants to hold their election? I mean does it really matter in the long run? Those people in those states have a right to have their votes "count" and have a say in who is running this country. I dont like either candidate. But allowing the seating of those delegates would be the right thing to do. The citizenship in those states are the ones being punished.

Shane H · February 17th, 2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Folster

This feels weird, but I completely agree with Al Sharpton on this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAiTyAMne3M

My buddy Al!

AZZenny · February 17th, 2008, 10:12 AM

Well seating them would not be the right thing to do, because the candidates were not permitted to campaign there, and thus all serious activity ceased very early, when Hillary was still the presumptive shoe-in nominee withalmost unchallenged support. Her frequent 'fundraising visits' in FLa kept a high profile for her -- so it's basically like forbidding Obama to campaign on the promise it won't matter, and now that it's a close race, 'we changed our mind.'

It was an idiotic move of the DNC to begin with, I agree totally(the entire primary system is a disaster) -- but to throw the candidacy to Hillary by reversing course after the fact is improper, IMO, not to mention proving no one ever needs to take anything the DNC says seriously in the future.

82CardsGrad · February 17th, 2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZZenny

Well seating them would not be the right thing to do, because the candidates were not permitted to campaign there, and thus all serious activity ceased very early, when Hillary was still the presumptive shoe-in nominee withalmost unchallenged support. Her frequent 'fundraising visits' in FLa kept a high profile for her -- so it's basically like forbidding Obama to campaign on the promise it won't matter, and now that it's a close race, 'we changed our mind.'

It was an idiotic move of the DNC to begin with, I agree totally(the entire primary system is a disaster) -- but to throw the candidacy to Hillary by reversing course after the fact is improper, IMO, not to mention proving no one ever needs to take anything the DNC says seriously in the future.

Just gotta love Howard Dean and his continued ability to muck things up...

By the way, both campaigns agreed to the "rules" as far back as the fall of '07. Now, Billary is scrambling, going back on their promise to abide by the "rules", and attempt to leverage the power of their machine to their benefit... I saw Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin on Meet the Press this morning. Schumer was pathetic in his defense of Billary...

lvgentleman · February 17th, 2008, 07:31 PM

The fact is that Florida and Michigan, rightly or wrongly, ignored the warnings of the DNC and moved up their primaries. They got their delegates stripped as a result.

It's politics - pure and simple. HRC wants the delegates in because they will give her a decisive advantage. Obama wants them out because he wasn't even on the ballot in MI, and didn't actively campaign in Florida (National Issue Ads aside).

Fact is that the DNC made a ruling and should stick by it - otherwise, they will lose what little control of the primary process they currently have. If you must seat the delegates - perhaps you could seat the same number of alternate delegates to cancel them out (a form of superdelegate - it's a touchy issue and I'm just spouting ideas off the top of my head).

All the candidates agreed with the DNC at the time the decision was made to strip the delegates. Candidates should promptly shut up at this time (fat chance of that happening).

UncleChris · February 18th, 2008, 01:20 PM

I think that the DNC will cave in and allow the delegates, not because of who won the states or who agreed to what, but because of the large electoral presence of both states (which is why I've never believed they would be disallowed). The DNC will end up wagging their finger and saying this can never happen again and make statements about party unity, and will then allow them in, IMHO.

Donald · February 18th, 2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

I think that the DNC will cave in and allow the delegates, not because of who won the states or who agreed to what, but because of the large electoral presence of both states (which is why I've never believed they would be disallowed). The DNC will end up wagging their finger and saying this can never happen again and make statements about party unity, and will then allow them in, IMHO.

It would be a travesty, and not because I prefer Obama. But because you can't change rules in the game like that. The fact that Obama was not on the ballot in MI and did not campaign in FL will be the sticking point that SHOULD keep those delegates out.

If not, it's as bad or worse than the 2000 general election and chad pinching.

AZZenny · February 18th, 2008, 01:49 PM

Pelosi, who has a lot of say in this decision, said under no circumstances will the Fla and MI delegates be allowed in if they would be the deciding factor -- that to say to them, 'you can't break our rules,' only to be defiantly flouted, and then for DNC to let the rule breakers be the tie-breakers would be absurd; in that case there are effectively no rules at all.

UncleChris · February 18th, 2008, 06:21 PM

Right or wrong, I guess we'll know soon enough.... I got a cyber beer on this one!

Pariah · February 19th, 2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvgentleman

The fact is that Florida and Michigan, rightly or wrongly, ignored the warnings of the DNC and moved up their primaries.

JMHO, but this should be a violation of states' rights. Where are they granted this kind of power? That they decide who gets on the presidential ballot in this manner is criminal, IMO.