Clinton campaign sets up website to push to change the rules (and steal election)

[tkdgirl]

February 20, 2008 8:49 AM


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.
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.

Political Punch

[witchcurlgirl]

How come you left out the part of the article that says:

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.

Both sides are trying to make changes....let's be fair and present the entire story

If people are really interested in change, then let's start by being honest. That would be a novelty in politics.

[NicoleWasHere]

I think Obama and Clinton are both acting like four year olds for constantly attacking each other like this. Especially Clinton. The Clinton's need to learn how to get over themselves.

[Sweetie]

This has been going on for years. This isn't the first election, and it won't be the last, that the candidates act like idiots.
Mudslinging is part of the game.

Also, do people really believe what anyone running for office says? They say what they have to say to get elected, and then forget the people that put them there.

[NicoleWasHere]

I know. Politicians are just overgrown children with grey hair and wrinkles.

[nycgirl]

Politicians are inherently corrupt and power hungry (yes even Obama, you don't run for president if you aren't after power), which is why it often comes down to picking the "lesser of two evils". As for the rules, I think Florida and Michigan should count, BUT I think they need to be done over. So both candidates can campaign and make a fair case. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, giving it to Clinton would not be fair. I want my candidate to win because of a fair election, not because of dirty tricks.

[witchcurlgirl]

^^ Yes, the Florida & Michigan thing is a bit of a mess.

[kingcap72]

"FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy."

Considering that one of Hillary's advisers was involved in the ruling to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates, it's seems very Karl Rove/George Bush-like that they would want to reverse that decision.

Personally, I think this was a set up from the start by the Clinton campaign. It would explain why Hillary was the only Democrat to really campaign in those states, even though she knew that the delegates wouldn't count. They figured if she started to fall behind then they could just whip out those delegate votes to give her a boost.

[witchcurlgirl]

Have I mentioned that the Dems always shoot themselves in the foot???? (My grandma is rolling in her grave over what's happened to FDR's party)


This is from NPR :

Step Back from the Edge: The Florida-Michigan Dilemma

“It's easy to understand why the state party people responsible for the move to January are digging in their heels. They feel defensive about it. For one thing, both states blew it. If they had stayed within the approved calendar, each would have voted at a critical stage in what has become the closest Democratic battle for the nomination since 1984. ”

What are the Democrats going to do about Florida and Michigan? The answer to that question could determine the party's nominee for president in August, and it could affect the fate of that nominee in November.
As it stands officially, no delegates from either state will be welcome when the party gathers in Denver in August. That is because both defied the national party and held their primaries before the first party-sanctioned date in February. They did this in frustration over the favored role granted to four smaller states that held their events in January (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina).
The confrontration between national and state parties erupted last year and has festered through a winter of malign neglect and unlucky circumstance. But two things are pretty clear now: First, the full delegations from the two states must be seated in Denver. Second, their votes for president cannot be apportioned according to the primaries they held in January.
Obviously, some may disagree with the first of these points. They may argue for the "death penalty" for both states because they defied the national party and scheduled their votes outside the calendar window as determined by the proper party authorities.
But this would be ugly and alienating within the party and make a nasty spectacle on TV for all the world to see. It would also all but doom the national ticket in both states; and while Florida may be a reach for Democrats this year, Michigan is essential to any Democratic victory scenario.
Looking at the other side, there will be those, including the senior Democratic senators from Michigan and Florida, who insist the states have done nothing to deserve punishment and ought to have their seats and be allowed to allocate their votes according to the January primaries.
Such protestations of innocence are disingenuous, to put it politely, given the two states' willful rule-breaking in their bid for greater power in the nominating process. To be sure, either Michigan or Florida would be more representative of the big states and the diversity of the Democratic party than Iowa or New Hampshire. But it's equally obvious that every other Top Ten state could say the same, and virtually all of them wanted to move up into January too. The difference was that Florida and Michigan actually did it, thumbing their noses at the rest of the country in the process.
But it's easy to understand why the state party people responsible for the January move are digging in their heels. They feel defensive about it. For one thing, both states blew it. If they had stayed within the approved calendar, each would have voted at a critical stage in what has become the closest Democratic battle for the nomination since 1984.
Beyond that, the party sanctions kept the candidates from campaigning in either state, and in Michigan all the major contenders except Hillary Clinton removed their names from the ballot. Local broadcasters and other businesses lost out on a bonanza when the campaigns in both states were cancelled.
So at this point, those responsible need to come away with something of value or risk taking the blame.
The national figures in this fiasco are also in desperate straits. If they can't reconcile the competing interests they may bruise the party's nominee and degrade its chances in November. That would always be stupid, but this year it's insane. The country has not been this ready to put the GOP out of the White House since at least 1992, when Bill Clinton won -- or 1976, when Jimmy Carter did.
Fortunately, there is a reasonable zone of compromise to be found, provided both sides of this confrontation are ready to climb down from their respective high horses.
First, the states must be assured they will not be barred. Second, their superdelegates must be told they will be seated as well, under the usual rules preserving their independence. Third, the bulk of the delegations, the pledged delegates must be apportioned according to a system acceptable to the rule-making body the states defied.
The states could hold new primaries or caucuses, although this is unlikely because it would either require Republican cooperation or cost the state parties money they don't have. It would also alienate people who don't want to have to vote a second time.
But there are still other possibilities for compromise.
One would seat the full delegations but split their votes equally between the remaining candidates. Another would apportion the delegates according to the delegate split of the other 48 states. Yet another would give Hillary Clinton whatever share she won in the two states but give all the remaining delegates to Barack Obama. That way, no one is "disenfranchised."
In any event, what is most necessary is that these two states not be allowed to both seat their delegates AND determine the party's nominee. That would not only rescind the punishment for their brazen defiance of the rules but richly reward them for it.

NPR: Step Back from the Edge: The Florida-Michigan Dilemma

[tkdgirl]

Leave it to a Clinton to want to change the rules when the rules no longer favor them. I'd bet a million dollars if Hillary were ahead in the count, this would not be an issue.

All I'm sayin' is, Obama supporters... get ready to get screwed by the Clinton Machine and super delegates.

[Cali]

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

How come you left out the part of the article that says:

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.

Sorry, but this is wrong too. Consider this:

"How is that possible? If there's only two candidates how can one of them not have a majority when it's all over? Thanks for asking about the superdelegates! About one out five of the Democratic delegates - 794 to be exact--are these so-called superdelegates and their votes will make the difference in reaching a majority. They vote at the convention at the same time the other delegates do, but they got there a different way. The superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials
The 794 superdelegates consist of :
• All members of the Democratic National Committee (elections to the
DNC are held in each state and territory).
• All Democratic members of the House of Representatives
• All Democratic members of the United States Senate
• All Democratic governors
• All former Democratic presidents
• All former Democratic leaders of the United States Senate
• All former Democratic Speakers of the House
• All former Democratic House Minority Leaders
• All former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee
Do superdelegates have to vote a certain way? Can they change their minds?
Superdelegates do not have to pledge to vote a particular way at the convention (although many announce their support for a candidate in advance). Regardless of any stated endorsement, superdelegates can vote however they choose and are free to change their minds."

Everything You've Ever Wanted To Know About Delegates And Superdelegates - Politics on The Huffington Post

He's not suggesting anything wrong or a change of the rules. He's simply asking the superdelegates to vote with the popular vote, which is reflected by the regular delegates, who attend the convention based on the primary results. And that is their right: the superdelegates can vote for whoever they want, period.


In fact, the official DNC rules about delegate selection, on pg. 14 it says that:
"Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."


Hillary is the one who is BLATANTLY trying to defy the rules of the DNC by having the FL and Michigan delegates seated.

[witchcurlgirl]

Originally Posted by Calimoonchild

Sorry, but this is wrong too. Consider this:

"How is that possible? If there's only two candidates how can one of them not have a majority when it's all over? Thanks for asking about the superdelegates! About one out five of the Democratic delegates - 794 to be exact--are these so-called superdelegates and their votes will make the difference in reaching a majority. They vote at the convention at the same time the other delegates do, but they got there a different way. The superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials
The 794 superdelegates consist of :
• All members of the Democratic National Committee (elections to the
DNC are held in each state and territory).
• All Democratic members of the House of Representatives
• All Democratic members of the United States Senate
• All Democratic governors
• All former Democratic presidents
• All former Democratic leaders of the United States Senate
• All former Democratic Speakers of the House
• All former Democratic House Minority Leaders
• All former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee
Do superdelegates have to vote a certain way? Can they change their minds?
Superdelegates do not have to pledge to vote a particular way at the convention (although many announce their support for a candidate in advance). Regardless of any stated endorsement, superdelegates can vote however they choose and are free to change their minds."

Everything You've Ever Wanted To Know About Delegates And Superdelegates - Politics on The Huffington Post

He's not suggesting anything wrong or a change of the rules. He's simply asking the superdelegates to vote with the popular vote, which is reflected by the regular delegates, who attend the convention based on the primary results. And that is their right: the superdelegates can vote for whoever they want, period.


In fact, the official DNC rules about delegate selection, on pg. 14 it says that:
"Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."


Hillary is the one who is BLATANTLY trying to defy the rules of the DNC by having the FL and Michigan delegates seated.

I think you're jumping the gun here....


I did not dispute the correctness of the statement, I was pointing out that the original poster left that out of the post even though it was in the article. When I clicked on the link, I saw the entire article and wished to know why the poster left out that part.

[*DIVA!]

I am only going to say this...Hillary and Kucinich were the only people on the ballots for the Democratic Presidential nomination in Michigan...Yes, that is cheating.

[tkdgirl]

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

I think you're jumping the gun here....


I did not dispute the correctness of the statement, I was pointing out that the original poster left that out of the post even though it was in the article. When I clicked on the link, I saw the entire article and wished to know why the poster left out that part.

I just excerpted the article and didn't mean to not include relative points. I didn't want to post the entire article because of copyright stuff, which is why I included the link. No malice intended, really.