Not that my little Indiana primary vote in the depths of May will make any difference, but Ms. Rodham Clinton just created another strike against herself in my estimation. She’s trying to change the rules of the Democratic primary in the middle of the game.
In an effort to keep a check on the ever accelerating primary schedule, the Democratic National Committee sanctioned Florida and Michigan for moving their primaries up in the schedule. The sanction was that their delegates would not count. The Edwards, Obama, and Clinton campaigns agreed to the sanctions. However, Clinton kept her name on the ballot in Michigan which, as one might expect, gave her a distinct advantage. She also happens to lead the polls in Florida where none of them are campaigning. So now, she wants to renege on her agreement and is urging that the Florida and Michigan delegates be seated.
Ezra Klein:
This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).
With no one campaigning, Clinton, of course, won Michigan — she was the only Democrat to be on the ballot, as I understand it, which is testament to the other campaign’s beliefs that the contest wouldn’t count — and will likely win Florida. And because the race for delegates is likely to be close, she wants those wins to matter. So she’s fighting the DNC’s decision, and asking her delegates — those she’s already won, and those she will win — to overturn it at the convention. She’s doing so right before Florida, to intensify her good press in the state, where Obama is also on the ballot. And since this is a complicated, internal-party matter that sounds weird to those not versed in it (of course Michigan and Florida should count!), she’s adding a public challenge that, if the other Democrats deny, will make them seem anti-Michigan and Florida.
But if this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn’t contest those states because they weren’t going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC’s procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It’s as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama’s victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate.
Doug, my political path is a little opposite of yours. I was a two time Clinton voter, but was so disgusted with and angry at Bill in 1998 that I probably would have voted to impeach. Over the years, my anger at Bill has subsided, and given the abuses of the Bush administration (no, I was never disgusted enough to vote for W), I’ve come to realize how silly it would have been to throw a president out of office because he committed perjury in the course of a witch hunt about his personal life. But as much as I have softened, their behavior in recent days has me right back there. These are bad people. I’m sure that deep down they care about this country, but any such cares are far smaller than Bill&Hill’s desperate thirst for power and influence. They don’t care a whit about tearing the Democratic Party–it’s their party, we’re just voting for it and funding it, you know. It sickens me that after all that has happened in the last eight years, the Democrats are going to be strongarmed into nominating the candidate with the best chance to lose.
Well, I guess we’ll see about whether Clinton gets the nomination. There’s many a slip ‘twixt a cup and a lip, and all of that.
I’d vote for H Clinton if she is the nominee and that’s the way it’s looking.But the above article points out maybe what she means when she says she is the most experienced.She gained her experience following in the footsteps of the republican leadership,and when they were at the top of their power, they used the rules and abused the rules,it never mattered much.She has a ruthless side and she knows her enemies and will deal with them fast once in a position of power. I’m guessing it would be ‘more of the same’ with a deadlocked Congress.I voted for Obama in the primary,although I really like Edwards better,because I don’t want Clinton to be the nominee,and I may not be the only one with such convoluted thinking,and may explain why Edwards is not getting his deserved attention.I’m also sorry to see so much emphasis on race vs gender of late,as if either has a higher standing.The first woman president or the first Black president would both be a milestone in American democracy.The positive is that probably a democrat will win.I also really like Obama,but Clinton seems able to neutralize him so effectively in public debate imagery.( I should point out my first political hero was JFK but I was too young to vote at that election and my second was Barry Goldwater,and he was my first vote for president.)
I rarely vote against candidates. I really like to vote *for* someone, on the basis of what they stand *for*. So, I voted for the Libertarian candidates in the past three elections. My last D or R vote for President was cast for Clinton in ’92. Since then, I had found that I couldn’t support any nominated D or R.
That said, I earlier blogged my position that there were two candidates I would vote against, if they should win their party’s nominations, because I fear them so greatly: Hilary Clinton and John McCain. I really do fear them. I think Hilary Clinton will be such a chilling personality, and would push so much economy-crushing policy. McCain is still pushing this useless war, and has shown that he will actively work against free speech.
And here we are, with both as the apparent front-runners today. I am really not very hopeful for the country’s future, as it stands right now.
I tend to vote for a candidate in the primary and against a candidate in the general election. (By definition, that means my primary choice almost never wins.)
C’mon now, certainly Ezra Klein knew that Sen. Clinton was not the only Democratic candidate on the Michigan ballot. The choice Democratic voters were given on the Michigan ballot included:
• Hillary Clinton
• Christopher Dodd
• Mike Gravel
• Dennis Kucinich
• Uncommitted
• Write-in
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2t876g
For the last couple of weeks, the Clintons have been playing “Let’s do whatever most makes us look like assholes.”
It’s pretty amazing to watch. So unnecessary and frankly destructive to her campaign–let alone the party.
In fact, now that you mention it, ~how dare Sen. Clinton’s campaign be allowed to run for office as she best determines… does she not realize what she’s a doin?
I’m tellin ya, the nerve of some folk.
The Clintons are all about the Clintons. Period.
Katie, way to beat up that straw man. We all realize that Senator Clinton knows exactly what she is doing. That’s the point. She can run the way she wants, and I can choose to withhold my support from her because of how she runs against other Democrats. Why should I trust someone who acts so dishonorably toward members of her own political party to run the country?
The DNC sanctioned these states for moving up their primaries against the rules. The candidates who matter ostensibly agreed with these sanctions. Clinton may well be right that her attempts to gain political advantage from these unsanctioned primaries is strictly to the letter of whatever her specific agreement was. But, it goes against the spirit of the agreement.
If I were Hillary Clinton, I’d be particularly cautious about coming off as dishonorable and legalistic.
sounds a lot like a recent democratic president who didnt understand the conjugation of “to be”
look, she’s gonna doom the down-ticket dems in Indiana but party building is not the kind of work they are about
John M., the positioning of the straw man in this post was not of my making.
Doug, the lawmakers and governors of Michigan and Florida changed their primary dates, leaving many to question which side will prevail–state law or political party rules. Do you have an opinion regarding that outcome?
It’s a national primary. So the national party’s rules should prevail.
More importantly, I think, the candidates appeared to agree with the DNC sanctions before things got going. If Clinton had raised a stink back in August or whenever this came up, I probably wouldn’t think poorly of her for agitating on behalf of Florida. But this 11th hour crap looks like it’s self-serving and nothing else. And, of course, that’s her right. But I don’t have to like it.
Ok.. CONGRATS, MR. OBAMA! And in Billary’s speech tonight she mentions FL again.. what a wank!
Idealistic thought of the day:
It would be nice if political parties were not permitted to conduct their internal affairs using the public election infrastructure.
At root, political parties are private clubs, and not worthy of this subsidy.
The only reasonable compromise I can think of is that if your party does want to use the public election infrastructure, its primary has to be open.
Ok, but it’s our federal Constitution that empowers each State to regulate most areas of electoral law, including primaries, the eligibility of voters … etc. How exactly does that work in the favor of DNC/RNC political party rules overriding State law, not so much.
Especially at this point in the race, I admire all the more that the Clinton camp was smart enough to cover all the bases and voter voices on this issue. In fact, it has swayed my primary vote in her favor. The fact that others did not—including the constitutional law professor—adds to the best candidate for the job criteria.
Branden, now you’re starting to sound like me!
Couldn’t agree more with your wise, sage words. :-D
Katie,
That’s what bothers me about H Clinton. She’s ‘smart’ in the same ways the Bush administration has been smart,and the country is in shambles as a result and the Republican party doesnt look so well either.
Unfortunately, she wasn’t smart enough to figure out that Hussein wasn’t much of a threat or smart enough to vote against that god awful bankruptcy bill, for starters.
Lou – I’m sorry?
Doug – Right you are, there was that god awful bankruptcy bill. Still, if we can overlook Edwards error in judgement, why not Clinton’s too. ;)
And just because…
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xgzzs
YMMV – Clinton didn’t vote for that god awful bankruptcy bill.
She voted for the same bankruptcy bill in 2001. She didn’t vote against the more recent one in 2005; rather she missed the vote.
Speaking of missed votes… Obama and McCain are tied for 7th place in number of missed congressional votes.
Not to be pedantic, but Bill Clinton actually understood the conjugation of “to be”. It’s the country that didn’t. He said, “There is no relationship.” Since he had already broken up with her, his statement was factually correct. I suppose we fault him for not saying, “You’re getting warmer…”