« Weekend Update: General Election Simulations | Fosberry's Blog | Ickes says Clinton may take Michigan dispute to the Credentials Committee »
Ickes picks up on "Credentials Committee" line
I'm watching some of the hearings on delay, and I noted Harold Ickes asking Levin about his briefly mentioning the credentials committee at the end of another set of questions.
Even when being told repeatedly he was out of time, Ickes slipped the question in. When Levin's overall response, which answered why their proposal would give Clinton fewer than the 73 delegates she would be awarded were the Michigan delegation seated in accordance with the voting, failed to mention the credentials committe, Ickes pressed him again on the line, asking him to expand on it.
Levin's stance was that they strongly believed Michigan's full delegation should be seated, but that there might be reasonable disagreement over their allocation - Obama's camp wanted an even 64-64 split, Clinton's camp wanted 73-55 (Levin is apparently ignoring Lanny Davis's proposal which would award Clinton even more; technically Davis is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign). Levin backed a 69-59 split, but in response to Ickes's repeated question about the "credentials committee", he said that if there was agreement that a full delegation should be seated, but that the allocation of that delegation were still at issue, then that should be taken up with the credentials committee.
The importance of this could be that if there is still dispute over allocation of Michigan's delegation today, the Clinton campaigm may feel justified in continuing to take this point to the convention. Ickes himself wasn't directly saying he should take this to the credentials committee, but he did succeed in getting Levin to say that could be an option.
Even when being told repeatedly he was out of time, Ickes slipped the question in. When Levin's overall response, which answered why their proposal would give Clinton fewer than the 73 delegates she would be awarded were the Michigan delegation seated in accordance with the voting, failed to mention the credentials committe, Ickes pressed him again on the line, asking him to expand on it.
Levin's stance was that they strongly believed Michigan's full delegation should be seated, but that there might be reasonable disagreement over their allocation - Obama's camp wanted an even 64-64 split, Clinton's camp wanted 73-55 (Levin is apparently ignoring Lanny Davis's proposal which would award Clinton even more; technically Davis is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign). Levin backed a 69-59 split, but in response to Ickes's repeated question about the "credentials committee", he said that if there was agreement that a full delegation should be seated, but that the allocation of that delegation were still at issue, then that should be taken up with the credentials committee.
The importance of this could be that if there is still dispute over allocation of Michigan's delegation today, the Clinton campaigm may feel justified in continuing to take this point to the convention. Ickes himself wasn't directly saying he should take this to the credentials committee, but he did succeed in getting Levin to say that could be an option.
Advertisement
I also noted Levin quite strongly doused the notion that the voting results, with Obama, Edwards, and others missing form the ballot, that the vote as taken on January 15th could accurately reflect the preferences of the Michigan electorate on that date. This was his justification for supporting a 69-59 split, which, in Ickes said would give some of Senator Clinton's rightly earned delegates to Senator Obama.
May 31, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prediction: Clinton will take this forward no matter what gets decided today.
Check out this Lanny Davis moment
Stephanie Tubbs Jones will be raising this issue in the future.
May 31, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll probably catch it shortly... but unfortunately your link isn't working.
I'm up to the questioning after Bonior's statement, and there's been much oration asking for "respecting the integrity of the voter", and/or asking why people removed their names from the ballot. One questioner also got in a good dig (from Clinton's perspective, that is) that exit polls are flawed, and caucuses are flawed (emphasis mine), which helps advance the notion that the primary vote is somehow more legitimate than caucus results.
Clinton has some good people spinning on her behalf.
May 31, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
POI, the Credentials Committee will meet before the convention (I think already scheduled in late June?).
The Clintons will surely try to keep going, and every Democratic force of nature from Carter, Pelosi, and Reid on down will try to shut them down next week. Unstoppable force meets immovable object. So pay your quarter, take your seat, and watch the show. This is as good as political theater gets.
May 31, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tina Flournoy makes a strong argument against not respecting the votes as expressed by voters in the voting booth. But she doesn't phrase her comment in the form of a question, spurring a nit-picky point of information.
It's a tough situation, and there are no good solutions for Michigan. Some sort of fairness to the candidates implies there should be some division of delegates, but that can't be done while fully respecting the votes as expressed on the 15th. But if you respect that vote literally (perhaps as half votes), that still ignores that some voters who would have voted in a contest that clearly would have counted decided either not to vote, or to vote in the Republican primary instead. So it's a mess.
It's also to Clinton's advantage to keep the issue unsettled, unless perhaps she can get Lanny Davis's proposal accepted. Any sort of split, even 73-55 in favor of Clinton, would keep Obama with a lead of well over 150 delegates, at which point the math becomes almost impossible to ignore.
May 31, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...almost impossible to ignore"?
Only the delusional Clintons are still at the "almost" stage. The math became impossible to ignore weeks ago.
"Almost" in February, maybe.
May 31, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken! Certainly this math hasn't significantly changed since then, other than perhaps Obama swinging from a deficit of SDs to a surplus now. Which only makes it harder for Clinton. But I'm sure some Clinton supporters will (dare I say it) cling to the hope that some gaffe or other deus-ex-machina event will cause SDs to change their minds and back her. Which is why I hegded somewhat...
May 31, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "deus ex machina" event such as that which occurred to Bobby Kennedy?
May 31, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly hope not! Even a Thomas Eagleton or Gary Hart like event would be bad enough!
May 31, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harold Ickes was just told to shut the fuck up by James Roosevelt, Jr. And not a moment too soon.
May 31, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did he really say "fuck"?
Are they having fun yet, down there in D.C.?
May 31, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not in D.C. I'm watching C-Span in Minneapolis. And no, he didn't use the word. Ickes was trying to grandstand, and Roosevelt said, "Mr. Ickes, it's not time for speeches now, it's time for questions."
In other words, shut the fuck up.
I think the entire committee is getting sick and tired of hearing Ickes' relentlessly stupid opinions.
May 31, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did he pull dynastic rank (your daddy worked for my grampy)?
May 31, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Levin even mention the credentials committee? I could have swore he never brought it up until Ickes mentioned it, though I was only partly paying attention to Levin's opening statement.
May 31, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question - I wasn't watching Levin's statement that closely, either. Ickes clearly said that Levin mentioned it first, and he repeated it when he finally got Levin to respond to the point.
What was clear to me was that Ickes wanted to get the idea out there that the allocation of the Michigan delegation may need to be decided by the credentials committee. The longer you can keep the uncertainty going, the better, for the Clinton camp.
May 31, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caught Levin again on a rerun, and he indeed did briefly mention the credentials committee himself:
Levin is arguing that Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't always get to go first, and that other states should get a chance. He foremost is arguing for a full Michigan delegation, whether it is the Michigan compromise allocation, or some other allocation that the two parties might agree to, or leave to the credentials committee to decide.
So Ickes didn't raise the issue first, but when he saw his opening, he jumped at the chance to push it further.
May 31, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's likely that all Ickes, Joyner and others are doing by being so (fill in the descriptive phrases of your choice)... This is only causing supers to decide to come out en masse for Obama this week, so Obama has all delegates needed no matter outcome now or later. IT'S TIME TO CONCENTRATE ON THE GENERAL.
(In my opinion Ickes is beyond smarmy and grotesque! These people are to be using their position on DNC committee to do what's best for their party - not their candidate of choice. I thought both Levin and Wexler were terrific.)
May 31, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course appealing to the Credentials Committee is an option and of course Hillary is inclined to go there, no matter what the RBC's decision is today. BUT...she will pay a heavy price for not playing nice after today. She's been very clearly warned this week by the Party Leadership. I expect the SuperDels to come out strongly for Obama after Tuesday. If she keeps making noise about the MI/FL issue, after the RBC makes a reasonable determination today, she will find herself standing very much alone.
May 31, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink