Clinton Planned the Florida and Michigan Debacle
The following words come to mind: gross intellectual dishonesty and shamelessness, Bush in a pants suit. Kitchen Sink.
"While the opposition — and more importantly, her opponent’s potential voters — were relying on her assurances to the contrary, she was already signaling to Florida operatives that she planned to press for counting the anticipated favorable Florida outcome and thereby to capitalize on her opposition’s absence from the fight."
Clinton Had a Long-Term Strategy for Florida and Michigan Madison Powers, CQ Guest Columnist May 28, 2008
Hillary changes stories like she changes pant-suits:
The Michigan flip-flop in 2 quick quotes.
Florida Democratic lawmakers were equally complicit in moving up the Florida primary.
Those poor Florida Democrats DKOS
"While the opposition — and more importantly, her opponent’s potential voters — were relying on her assurances to the contrary, she was already signaling to Florida operatives that she planned to press for counting the anticipated favorable Florida outcome and thereby to capitalize on her opposition’s absence from the fight."
Clinton Had a Long-Term Strategy for Florida and Michigan Madison Powers, CQ Guest Columnist May 28, 2008
...This coming weekend, the Rules and Bylaws committee of the Democratic Party meets to discuss what to do about seating both the Florida and Michigan delegations. The last two weeks have produced an escalation of Clinton rhetoric, comparing her effort to get the votes of the two states counted as comparable to that of suffragettes, civil rights marchers, and freedom fighters.
...However, the real story of the Clinton reversal may be more troubling than the usual account suggests, and our own memories may well have obscured the real nature of how we have gotten to where we are 3 months out from the convention. The drumbeat for counting Florida and Michigan actually began in late January, before it became clear to most observers that the nomination was not going to be locked up easily and early.
Well before Clinton began her series of primary contest losses, she made public her plan to press for delegate votes from the two states that had violated the rules. Four days before the Florida primary on January 29, and just two weeks after her 55 percent share of primary votes cast in the Michigan primary in which neither Edwards nor Obama were on the ballot, Clinton announced that she would ask her “Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan.” Perhaps the rest of us did not pay much attention at the time, but Florida Democratic Party officials took immediate notice and extended to her their thanks for her promise of support.
Contrary to the familiar view that her argument for counting Michigan and Florida is a tactic of last-minute desperation, Clinton’s reliance on counting both the delegates and the popular vote from both states was integral to her long-term vision of her possible electoral path to the nomination. It is —and has been for months — her Ace in the Hole. Hers is not a late campaign conversion or a post hoc, unplanned maneuver.
The effort to press for the counting of Florida and Michigan was a premeditated act, a deliberate strategy adopted at a time when it was clear that her opposition was relying on her representations that neither outcome would count. It was, in effect, a classic case of bait and switch....
....more at the link
Hillary changes stories like she changes pant-suits:
The Michigan flip-flop in 2 quick quotes.
parenthetical - May 27, 2008
As this discussion enters what we can only hope is its last couple of weeks, some brief research helped me distill the integrity problem of the Clinton MI position into two little quotes for my own reference.
October '07 (speaking about the upcoming MI primary):
"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."
March '08:
"If you're a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your votes," she said. "The results of those primaries were fair and should be honored.
Florida Democratic lawmakers were equally complicit in moving up the Florida primary.
Those poor Florida Democrats DKOS
To hear the Clinton campaign and Florida Democrats tell it, they were innocent bystanders to their state's GOP in deciding to move their election date up prior to their sanctioned slot in the calendar.
The reality is much different: Watch the video That's the Florida Senate Democratic minority leader Steven Geller overtly pretending to object to the new calendar, laughing about it the whole time.
Geller: The chair of the Democratic National Committee has of coursed threatened that if we move the primary to before the first Tuesday in February that they will sanction us at the Democratic National Convention. So the Democratic leader and the Democratic leader pro-tem are jointly making this motion, which we will duly show to them later, that we tried not to have the election before the first Tuesday in March.
Chair: And so Sen. Geller are you urging a negative vote or would you like us to pass this vote?
Geller : Oh no sir, we really really want this, don't we senator?
Chair: I understand. Please don't throw me into the bramble bush.
They were mocking the DNC's calendar and its rules from the beginning. This wasn't a Democratic Party dragged along by a malicious GOP. Florida Democrats wanted their state earlier in the calendar.
Advertisement
Wow. You beat me to it. I just posted a link to the same article about two seconds ago. Great, scary article, eh?
May 28, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's more likely the case Hillary thought she'd have won the election and wanted to be able to make the case come the general that she was sticking up for Michigan and Florida voters when the DNC penalized them. She basically thought the eventual GOP nominee would make political hay out of the issue and was making those early moves to defend such a claim. She probably also assumed Mi and Fla would be seated at the end because she would have won and the results wouldn't have changed anything. Of course now she is pulling the same trick she expected the GOP to play by making it a big issue of Constitutional importance.
May 28, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Novak back in September thought that Hillary planned the penalties against Michigan and Florida - that it actually helped her if she did badly in the first four states.
May 29, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It takes a person as odious as Bob Novak to understand and decipher the tactics of the equally odious political minds making strategy decisions in the Clinton campaign.
May 29, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting to sit back and watch Obama and his supporters throw away 2 large states before he has even won the nomination. They're crafting the 48 State Strategery I guess.
May 28, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won't be thrown away -- they'll be seated with 50% of their delegates.
And it won't change the outcome of the nomination one iota.
May 28, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course as long as that 50% is split evenly for Obama and Clinton thereby negating the will of the Michigan and Florida voters you mean.
May 28, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like the republicans did to their primary delegations? They're hardly going to be able to hold it over us if we do exactly what they did.
May 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? What about the Michigan voters who did not get to vote for their candidate because HIS NAME WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT, in accordance with a previous agreement that EVERYONE agreed to? Stop with the nonsense.
May 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, those voters should have thought of that before they decided to live in Michigan. Duh.
May 28, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A one candidate election reflects the will of the voters? Really? Seriously?
I do not want to disenfranchise anyone but to claim Michigan results reflect the will of the voters is a real stretch and challenges any rational thought process.
Florida has a better case. But even there many voters stayed home because the DNC said there vote did not count. And the same holds for Michigan.
So neither primary reflects the will of the voters.
May 28, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your math is fuzzy. The 50% does not refer to the number of delegates but to the fact that the proposal reduces the value of each delegate to 1/2 it's nominal value (had they not flouted the rules). So, in Florida Hillary will end up with something like 19 more pledged delegates than Obama. In other words it its still proportional, but the delegates are worth only 1/2 vote each.
Michigan is more complicated because Obama was not on the ballot.
Hillary has vowed to protest any solution arrived at on Saturday even without knowing what will be proposed. She is intent on taking the issue to Denver. If she does that she will be humiliated. They will not cave in to her demands.
May 28, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how many states has Hillary "thrown away".
Amazing. Obama plays by the rules, wins by the rules. But rules don't matter to the Clintons.
Morally bankrupt.
May 28, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. Morally bankrupt is right.
May 28, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess all of you have forgotten that the RNC is punishing by cutting 1/2 of the delegates.
How can McCain argue what is being argued by Hillary when the Repukes "disenfranchised" Florida as well.
And Amber, as I have been saying, since we can't believe anything Hillary says how can anyone believe she'll do anything she says she'll do as POTUS if she steals the election?
Hopefully the DNC will do what's right, not change the rules at the end of the game for the losing candidate, and Obama will be on his way to the presidency. OTOH, she's not beyond going to the convention and trying again. After all she doesn't give a damn about anyone but herself and the presidency she "deserves."
May 29, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a weak argument. You assume that Democratic voters, who are predisposed to vote for the Dem nominee no matter who it is, will nevertheless vote for McCain to "punish" the Democratic National Committee? You really assume that the majority of voters are the kinds of political junkies who hang out on sites like this? What a crock.
May 29, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT COLLECTION OF "REALITY" ARTICLES!
May 28, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's just too smart by half. What a wascally wabbit Hillary is.
May 28, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Video was removed by the user. But jedreport has it
Geller appears about 1:13 into the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIXBtHfr0C8
May 28, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, all I can say is: I'm not surprised.
May 28, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
So of course the reason she won by these margins is because the smart latte-drinking and AA voters ignored these contests.
And that there are just too many stupid low-information bitter ones who went in droves to the polls.
May 28, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about the ones who drove to the polls and voted uncommitted? Hillary's strategy only works if Obama gets 0 from Michigan. What about those?
May 28, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, mageduly, that's the kicker about Michigan. It's one thing that Clinton wants the votes that (titularly at least) were for her, but to claim Obama shouldn't have the uncommited votes is absurd -- which is not to say the argument that some of the uncommitted votes were probably for other candidates besides Obama is totally without merit. Some of them no doubt were -- though the recommendation to Michigan voters before the primary definitely was to vote uncommitted if you wanted to vote for Obama.
Also, if this argument about the uncommitted votes is to be given weight, there is then the question of how many of Clinton's votes were cast because for her simply because she was the only Democratic party name on the ballot. It's no less likely that a portion of her votes were simply cast by default than it is likely that some of the uncommited votes were not meant for Obama.
Finally, there was also a recommmendation going around before the primary that Democrats who wanted to mess up the Republicans should vote for Romney (to keep the contest going) since voting in the Democratic party wouldn't count. Just what the votes lost because of this would number, we cannot know. But there is no doubt a fair number of Democrats who played this game and so their votes were miscast as well.
Or in other words, the Michigan primary results should not be considered authentic. No way, no how. By anyone.
May 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, ignoring your insulting language, Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan (why do we have to keep repeating this). If your candidate's name is not on the ballot the incentive is slightly less to go vote uncommitted than it is if you can pull the lever for your candidate.
You have a stronger case for Florida.
I guess what gets me is the disingenuousness of it all. HRC supported what you call "disenfranchisement" only until the point that she needed those delegates and then the rhetoric started ramping up until now it is comparable to the civil rights movement, Florida 2000, and Zimbabwe. If she had said all along she was against disenfranchising any voters, I might have more sympathy and not view it as a simply cynical ploy.
May 28, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read this smarty Lalo (not Lalo Alcarez): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052702553.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
May 28, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have misunderestimated Hillary. She did have a plan B after all.
May 28, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has she ever convincingly explained her whereabouts in November 1963?
May 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could pinpoint just when Hillary started using the phrase "popular vote" because that's when she put this in motion.
It's part of it.
Which is why it has made me so livid and irrational about all the posts and articles on it - everyone played right the hell into her hands on this.
The whole media tripped right after her down this path and more than helped to make this happen - and that includes more than one liberal blog.
I've made myself unpopular bitching about this - but goddamn I could see it from the first. I tried to talk to Josh about it even.
I knew where she was going.
May 28, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully, the last part is more of an issue of style than substance.
May 28, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I know - I'm not blaming him. In the first place, I can only guess at how many emails he gets.
In the second - I know that it's a style thing -
I said because I have been really frustrated over this for quite some time cause I could see that it was going to lead potentially to just what it's lead to.
O well - I don't know why it was so apparent to me right from the start, but it was - the minute she said Popular Vote I knew where she was going.
Well, done now! LOL!
May 28, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must disagree. You haven't made yourself the least bit unpopular with people who have their eyes open.
May 30, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am originally from Miami, FL, my family is still there. my sisteris a homeowner and only went to vote because of a tax issue that pertained to homeowners. There are a lot of Floridians that did not go vote because they knew the Primary did not count.
There is anger on the part of those disenfranchised voters as well, but I guess they don't count. Afterall they made the mistake of taking their party at their word!
May 28, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
edith, no offense, but if people wanted to vote on an issue that counted and didn't - they "disenfranchised" themselves.
Nothing kept them from going to vote on those issues and in those other races that mattered.
For heaven's sake!
May 28, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well before Clinton began her series of primary contest losses,
January 29 was after Clinton began her series of primary contest losses.
May 28, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm... Super Tuesday was February 5th. She hit the skids for 11 straight following that, until she took Ohio and Rhode Island on March 4th. Sorry.
May 28, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Four days before the Florida primary on January 29"
For the history books, January 25, 2008 can now be looked upon as the date that Hillary knew she was going to lose!
May 28, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of people have been saying that for a while here on TPM. Even when she decided to keep her name on the ballot in Michigan, there were questioned exclamation points thrown up.
Even though she blew it off at the time just before Michigan voted, her dismissal was seen as disingenuous and folks were saying that it was her insurance. I thought, "no, she couldn't really be doing that, could she?"
She is bold enough to try to use an election were her chief opponent was not even on the ballot. BARACK OBAMA WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT! It's shocking that she thinks that superdelegates are stupid enough to buy this reasoning as valid enough to split up the party, destroy their chances of taking the presidency and alienating a generation of voters and the most loyal constituency.
Hillary needs to go away, now.
Hillary Deathwatch on Slate.com still has her chances of winning the nomination at 0.5%.
http://www.slate.com/id/2192271/
"So Clinton is pushing her "popular vote" argument harder than ever. In a letter to superdelegates today, she wrote that "when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries." The popular vote is within reach, assuming huge turnout in Puerto Rico. (Her claim that she's currently winning it is disingenuous, though, since that count includes Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot.) The pledged-delegate count—or whatever she means by "delegates earned through primaries"—not so much...
...Still, Obama picks up three more superdelegates today. The campaign says it's now 46 delegates away from securing the nomination."
May 28, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care what your issue is - gay rights, pro- choice, environment, education, minority rights, etc. None of these matter right now.
They don't mention it in the article, but I think she is right behind the Hamburglar.
And Sinbad.
May 30, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! The quote was intended to be:
Hillary Deathwatch on Slate.com still has her chances of winning the nomination at 0.5%.
THEN
They don't mention it in the article, but I think she is right behind the Hamburglar.
And Sinbad.
Can I deliver a punchline, or what?
May 30, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was just an interesting comment by Al Giordano at the Field. He said that the move in both Florida and Michigan to move up the primary originated with Clinton supporter/apparatchiks in those states. The hope was that by moving big states up, name recognition would be much more important, thus giving Clinton an advantage. If it had been successful, Clinton would probably be the nominee. As it happened, though the DNC under Dean reacted more aggressively than expected to the rule-breaking.
This sort of thing is why the Clinton's didn't want Dean heading the DNC in the first place.
May 28, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true, certainly in Michigan and possibly in Florida.
The people who pushed an early vote in MI were all Clinton supporters. Debbie Dingell, wife of Rep. John Dingell. Governor Granholm and Sen. Levin. They all either, endorsed before their state voted, or shortly after.
In Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, another Clinton supporter pushed the early vote there.
If Hillary was the great party leader that she claims to be, why didn't she try to dissuade them from jumping the gun? And why would they risk not being seated, unless Hillary assured them that as the inevitable nominee, she would see to it that they wouldn't be punished for being naughty.
May 29, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this goes to Denver, the Dems will most likely lose be it Obama or Hillary...Republicans win.
If Obama's lead is overturned, The Dem party fractures for who knows how long...Republicans win.
If this process is over early to mid-June with Obama as the nominee...Then the Dems have their best chance of taking back the White House this election cycle.
This was almost a guaranteed landslide win for the Dems early on, but now folks who call themselves "lifelong" Democrats are willing to hand this over to McCain out of spite! As an Independent for Barack Obama, this shows me that maybe the Democratic party needs a good swift kick to the ass to realize they are about to willingly give up a chance at changing the status quo. They seem to have lost any sense of loyalty to their own.
It's yours to lose, no crying about it after it was given to you on a silver platter.
May 28, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, how about another perspective from one of your fellow Obama supporters, before he chose a candidate.
Kos, from Daily Kos on Jan. 2, 2008,
May 28, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
MUST READ:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052702553.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Harold Meyerson blew the Michigan case out of the water brilliantly by just simply laying out the facts:
"...Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties. (The only member of the committee to vote against them was an Obama supporter from Florida.) Harold Ickes, a committee member, leading Clinton strategist and acknowledged master of the political game, said, "This committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced." Patty Solis Doyle, then Clinton's campaign manager, further affirmed the decision. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," she said, referring to the four states that the committee authorized to hold the first contests. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar."..."
May 28, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the all caps, I was angry.
May 28, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since both Michigan and Florida voted after the IW and NH votes, it's possible that she wanted them in her pocket "just in case."
What better way to look like a "winner", especially after Obama's stunning victory in Iowa, that was still the talk of the media?
May 29, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, FL voted after Obama's 16.9% win in S.C. and the debacle around Bill's remarks, making it all the more likely that she was encouraging Florida, sub rosa.
May 29, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has now taken Kentucky … Nevertheless, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico are still to come.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive and most likely to be decided by superdelegates If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support either Clinton or Obama
May 29, 2008 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It’s a little silly to follow one flog for a website with another, but unfortunately, the candidate endorsement info on lobbydelegates.com is not updated very frequently. Which is a real problem, because directing people to lobby supers to endorse a candidate AFTER THEY’VE ALREADY DONE SO is self-defeating and has a real potential to piss superdelegates off.
And every time I’ve checked that site out for the past few days, it’s been out of service because of technical glitches or traffic overloads.
For an easy to use, state-by state, daily updated list of all the superdelegates that shows who is still undecided, and how to contact them by phone or e-mail, visit our website:
http://www.supervoters.org
We are focusing on superdelegates who are also elected officials and accountable to their constituents. Our site has sparked petition drives to superdelegates in seven states including North Carolina, where we first organized.
Take five minutes and use the tools on SuperVoters.org to contact an undecided superdelegate near you.
Erik Ose
Co-Organizer, Voters for Obama
Chapel Hill, NC
May 29, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not me! I smelled that stench a mile away.
This is what I recall:
All polls indicated she was going to get her ass handed to her in SC, so she flew down to Florida the day before the SC primary to "make her case" and talked about "disenfranchisement". That was the beginning of the end. It was pretty obvious that she planned to milk the MI & FL debacles for every last drop.
May 29, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink