Way back in October of 2007, someone in New Hampshire asked Clinton if it wasn’t just politics as usual, saying one thing and doing another, that she hadn’t taken her name off the Michigan ballot.
As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state’s primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15.
“It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything,” Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio’s call-in program, “The Exchange.” “But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008.”
No one knew what the hell that was supposed to mean when she said it. Her additional comments clarified nothing.
“I did not believe it was fair to just say, ‘Goodbye Michigan’ and not take into account the fact we’re going to have to win Michigan if we’re going to be in the White House in January 2009,” she said…
…”If you look at the some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow. And it wasn’t, in my view, meaningful, but I’m not going to say there’s an absolute, total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won’t come back to haunt us if we’re not careful about it.”
None of that empty talk explained why she wanted her name on the ballot in a contest that ‘is not going to count for anything.’ She agreed not to campaign or advertise in Michigan, and she agreed that the contest wouldn’t count. A lot of people smelled a rat back in October, and they were right to smell a rat.
Hillary Clinton says the results of Michigan’s Democratic presidential primary should count, even if Barack Obama’s name did not appear on the ballot.
“That was his choice,” she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. “There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted.”
It was not only Obama’s choice, but the choice of Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards. But why does the choice matter? As Clinton acknowledged three months before the Michigan contest, ‘It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.’ If it was ‘clear’, then having your name on the ballot didn’t matter any more than not having your name on the ballot.
The New Hampshire Union-Leader is hardly a friendly or impartial source, but they noted that Clinton’s attitude towards the Michigan and Florida contests violated the spirit of an explicit promise she made last August.
COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to “campaign or participate” in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.
Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.
“I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida,” Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.
Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.
She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.
New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers.
Actually, I think Michigan was moved up explicitly to help Clinton, so I don’t think she wanted the contest not to count. Florida was screwed by the Republican legislature and governor, and Clinton certainly did not want Florida not to count. There’s no question that Clinton has been hurt by the DNC’s stripping of the MI and FL delegates. But she did promise not to campaign or participate in those states, and she acknowledged that the contests would not count.
That was then. Now?
“We’ll wait and see where the voters go,” Clinton says, when asked if she thinks the superdelegates should follow the lead of the popular vote. “I want to see what happens in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, Michigan and Florida.”
…”With all due respect, we have to look at who can anchor the states we need to win in running against John McCain,” she says. “He will be very competitive in states like Florida. We have to ask ourselves as Democrats, ‘Who is the person best able to defeat John McCain?'”
With all due respect, Clinton has lost the nomination and she is just being spiteful at this point.
The biggest argument (other than money) against letting Michigan re-vote is that our state party broke the rules, and we shouldn’t be rewarded by getting to have a do-over that is even more important (at least from a media perspective) than our usual primary ever would be.
I can understand that, but I think it is very short sighted and a bit petty.
Obama and Clinton are very closely matched in Michigan. They would both have to campaign here quite heavily, and a great deal of party infrastructure would be built in the process.
Michigan can go either red or blue in the fall, and isn’t exactly a lightweight when it comes to electoral votes. Getting a head start on building a real GOTV effort here would pay real dividends in the fall.
I think there should be a re-vote, but how do you handle that given the open-primary status in Michigan? Especially since it appears that there is quite a bit of Republican crossover voting for Hillary per right-wing talk radio suggestions that she would be easier to beat in the fall?
NO way in hell do I think the earlier results should stand. And anyone who is claiming that those results are fair or accurate is just an out-and-out liar.
Well, since the do-over would be only on the Democratic side, it would seem the most fair way to do it would be (assuming they still have the voter rolls) to not allow anyone who voted in the Republican primary in January to vote in the do-over. It might disenfranchise a few people who crossed over to vote for Mittens because they didn’t want to vote ‘uncommitted’, but I can’t think of a better way.
And I totally agree regarding the earlier results. They are a traveshammockery.
Are you saying that only the people who voted in January should be allowed to vote again? What about the people who stayed home because they knew the primary didn’t count?
If they’re going to do this by mail, then I think the ballots should go out to all registered Democrats (regardless of how they voted in January) and Independants who chose to vote Democratic in January. At that point in the campaign, I don’t know how many crossover Republican votes there were but I’m guessing not enough to make a difference. Any Dems who crossed over to vote in the Repub primary should just be forgiven considering the circumstances.
Just joking but maybe the new ballot should only have Obama, Edwards, Biden and Dodd on it so Hillary people have to choose “uncommitted.” har
No, I’m saying everyone should be able to vote except the people who voted in the January Republican primary. So anyone who voted in the Democratic primary, or didn’t vote at all, would be eligible.
I think the idea is that people who have already voted in the Republican primary should not be allowed to vote in any Democratic do-over, precisely to avoid the kind of chicanery that Rush is trying to stir up. Everyone else who’s eligible, including those who voted in the unsanctioned Democratic primary, should be allowed to vote this time.
I think this is a good approach, personally; the only problem I can see is if there is a situation similar to that here in Washington. Most of the Democrats here didn’t bother to vote in the primary because only the caucus votes counted toward delegate selection on the Democratic side. If you did vote in the primary, though, you had to sign an oath stating that you did not participate in any other primary or caucus in February. One of my favorite local bloggers (Goldy over at horsesass.org) did some fact-checking and found that although the law mandating the oath is on the books, there appears to be no punishment for violating that law, so he reasoned that Democrats who had caucused could vote in the Republican primary and screw around with the vote count, literally with impunity. So if there’s going to be a revote and anyone who voted in the Republican primary would be excluded, there needs to be some kind of teeth to the exclusion (e.g. prosecution for vote fraud).
a re-vote unlikely to happen in time for the convention.
I just posted in another diary on the apparent required DOJ pre-approval and legal hurdles:
DOJ’s Pre-clearing required for any re-vote and or voting process change.
I suggest split the combined states 50/50 but deduct 40% from Hillary’s take – her penalty for breaking the rules. She did not take her name off the Michigan ballot and her surrogates aggressively campaigned on her behalf in Florida.
Gawd, she flew into FL on the day of the vote telling voters she’d fight to have delegates seated.
One idea that hasn’t been discussed is using a public opinion poll. The only problem with the idea is that it usually requires a telephone. One way to solve this problem would be to use the mail services for people without phones.
The census bureau has proposed using statistical sampling, but the Republicans have blocked this effort and have cited the “enumerated” language of the constitution. It’s a specious argument, and the only reason it’s argued is because a sampling would account for many people normally missed.
It is the best way of reaching a close approximation of voter preferences, and at a low cost.
If I’m reading you right, you’re in MI. I thought I read somewhere that, in addition to a big African-American component to the electorate, that there’s also a sizeable Muslim-American segment (which of course, Bush long ago gave the finger to). Is that the case? And if so where do you think they stand on Obama/Clinton?
Yep, that is the case. Dearborn, MI (near Detroit) has the 2nd largest population of Arabs in the world outside the Middle East and is sometimes called the Muslim capital of the U.S.
If there were a real primary here, Obama would destroy Clinton in the Detroit area and the bigger college towns (Ann Arbor, East Lansing). The west side of the state is pretty heavily conservative, and I think Hillary would do well among Democrats there.
I think it would be close, but I think Obama would win. One other factor is that our governor, Jennifer Granholm, is DLC through and through and has endorsed Hillary. So that could bring some more votes her way.
That’s a VERY exciting prospect. Thanks for the reply.
I teach high school in a neighborhood that is heavily Muslim and heavily African-American and they are pretty excited about Obama.
The reason why we’re at this late date without firmer plans for do-overs is that there has been a lot of dicking around by the state parties who believed that they could get their original primaries to count, especially after Hillary’s 180-degree turn/flipflop/broken pledge/lie.
There are problems with all proposed solutions. Money, time, legalities. There won’t be a new primary, I don’t think. Mail-ins? Maybe. I don’t think caucuses can be done. If all else fails, I’d say split the delegates down the middle so that they can participate in the convention without giving one side an advantage.
Booman a good read. Reading your post, Hillary will say whatever it takes, to make people vote for her. A great post trapping Hillary with her own lies and spewing words of nonsense..to meet her own political goals.
‘With all due respect’, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have no respect for us. So let’s finally drop the pretence of respect for them, a privilege which they have squandered. Yes, my remark is totally meaningless because it contributes nothing reasonable to the discussion. A bit shrill. But then, come to think about it, what is the discussion all about anyway? Maybe ask the Clintons. All I see is an intricate web of nasty statements, innuendoes and subterfuges meant to secure the nomination for them. You call that a reasonable discussion? My mistake, because they weren’t proposing a discussion, they were more interested in a conversation, that’s more her style. It’s an unhappy circumstance that the Democratic primary has come to this. Really.
Sorry BooMan
Hillary made no promise…did not sign a pldege to abide the rules.
Don’t you know, Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral.
It was forged!
Honestly, I don’t think there’s much respect due Clinton on this; it’s perfectly clear to all at this point–whether one feels it’s defensible or not–what her plan was. Treating voters in MI and FL like cattle to be branded with a big, fat “HRC” is the most egregious, most calculatingly cynical move I can imagine taking place this particular cycle. (I’m hoping against hope not to see she’s topped herself in the near future with some new stunt that I can’t dream up yet.) What’s more, if this doesn’t show everyone exactly what she is, and what she’s shown her fundamental view of the democratic process to be (a con game)–I don’t know what will. I can only hope that any superdelegates of reasonably good conscience that may be fence-sitting will remember her screaming about caucuses being an anti-democratic sham while she pulls a tactic from the Musharraf playbook. Nauseating.
How about stealing from her own supporters and staffers?!?
http://bluejersey.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=9813449AE0DED021B8BD56515A85568C?diaryId=7104
HRC is a damned desperate bitch who has hired arm-twisting thugs and lobbyists to manage her campaign. Apparently, there are thieves at work, too. Taking money directly from someone’s personal account without even the courtesy of asking is WRONG. Who many people did they put over the legal limit for contributions? How many dared complain, or simply sucked up the loss?
Is this how she plans to manage the country??? Just reach into wallets to fund her bloated ego?
And, yes, I’m getting angrier by the day. She is destroying my Party and will destroy my Country unless stopped, and I fear the party’s leaders don’t have the gumption to act in time.
This is an interesting legal twist on having MI/FL do-overs.
Apparently there may be a Voting Rights Act issue. The source says there is an issue but I haven’t looked at the act myself and I’m not a voting rights lawyer.
I agree with one of the commenters that the DOJ would probably NOT drag it’s feet on approval but I could see them being very leary of a brand spankin’ new mail-in procedure that might have all kinds of opportunities for screw-ups that could look like voter fraud.
she has lied about doing it. We all had a choice? BS She said she would not in a signed pledge and broke it. Now she is lying about it. Lets call a spade a spade. Get her out of this reace. NO to do overs. NO to letting it stand. They knew what they were doing. No pay the consequences. Anything other than not counting these two states would be cheating. Period!
One other thought: If Clinton can somehow pull out of her rear end some way of getting the nomination by managing to beat the will of a majority of Democratic voters to death with a shovel, I’ll have no doubt that she’ll be able to out-Republican poor old John McCain in the General. She gave him a good, solid run for his money here in MS the exit data now show (Love the war? Love the Bush tax cuts?). Yep, she’s a fighter, that one. Go Hillary (far, far away).
I am contacting the DNC. No more money.
We have had seven years of lies. No More and no more cash until it is dealt with.
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
Yep, I only send money to individual candidates now.
Last time I gave to the DNC was January. I wrote across the form in big red letters: “Restricted donation. Not to be used in any way that a reasonable person would view as support for Hillary Clinton.”
My reason for donating to the DNC is Dean’s 50 state strategy. But no more until this mess is settled.
I agree. It’s generally safer to vet your candidates well and give to them, but I still believe it takes a larger organization (DNC, DFA, etc.) to make structural changes on a broad scale.
I hate writing to the DNC, it seems so faceless. I much prefer to write to the particular politician(s) who deserves my ire/praise. But yesterday, I was fed up.
Great letter, and believe me, I’m as ashamed as you are. Our party leaders are making hypocrites of all of us, and it really upsets me greatly. I know they don’t represent the bulk of us, but then, why ARE they are party leaders??
I suspect that there are a lot of Dem officials who are between wanting to appear neutral and afraid of Clinton.
Pelosi’s comments about the death of the unity ticket thanks to Clinton should be viewed as a signal.
But it would have been nice for someone to stand up and tell Clinton to cut out the racist shit.
Booman,
Fine post, but I hate to see you buying into the idea that the acceleration of the Florida primary was solely the Florida Republicans’ fault. It wasn’t. The bill to move up the primary date was introduced by a Democrat. And all Democrats in the statehouse voted for it. The Republicans, to be sure, played hardball by including it within an election reform package, but that’s just ordinary legislative maneuvering. If it was that important, the democrats could have voted against it and explained themselves. I believe that most people would understand if you told them that the Republicans inserted a poison pill into the electoral reform law. (Plus if that bill got defeated because of the poison pill, it could easily be re-introduced after the first round of primaries happened, thus preventing a repeat.) They didn’t. They wanted to shake up the Democratic primary calendar (which is, to be sure, in dire need of reform), and they got burned. That’s all there is to it.
Ummm, way to ignore North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, etc. Are we to infer that she doesn’t want to see what happens in those states? The importance of PA, MI, and FL is clear. But Puerto Rico?? Puerto Rico doesn’t fit into anything the Clinton campaign has been saying. Ickes said “Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November. He’s winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election.” So how exactly is Puerto Rico a “state that matters” or in any way relevant to the general election? It has ZERO electoral college votes! So in their view the keys to the nomination are giving a free pass to two states for openly defying the DNC and giving heightened significance to a territory that has no say in the general election. Sweeeeeet.
Doesn’t getting delegates constitute a subtantial part of participating in a primary? I mean, if getting delegates is not part of the primary, indeed the most important part, then Clinton signed a pledge and is now breaking that pledge.
So what’s new?