DNC Takes 4 Michigan Delegates from Hillary and Gives Them to Obama -- and Converts 55 Uncommitted Delegates to Obama

Below is a short video clip of Harold Ickes, at yesterday's DNC hearing, arguing against the motion to 1) take 4 Michigan delegates away from Hillary Clinton and give them to Barack Obama and 2) to give 55 delegates to Obama, though the voters voted uncommitted (some of whom might have supported Edwards or Richardson -- not Obama).

As Mr. Ickes points out, this is not the way to promote party unity.

Comments

[Adam]

The Michigan ruling, in essence, is nothing but a political compromise.

It does not reflect the will of the January 5 voters, including the 18% of Clinton voters who (according to exit polls) supported a candidate other than Hillary.

It probably doesn't reflect the will of the 30,000 write-in votes, or of the 1,300,000 (disenfranchised?) Michigan voters who stayed home because their favorite candidates were not on the ballot, and/or they were told the vote didn't count, either.

It reflects one basic fact - there was not a free, fair, meaningful primary contest in Michigan this year. In stead, we had a soviet-style election with no advertising and only one major candidate.

If Clinton had taken her name off the ballot like Bradley and Gore did in 2000, we probably this whole affair.

Party Unity? This ruling won't have much impact on it. Far more meaningful will be what Hillary says and does in the coming weeks. She has galvanized her base around a quixotic quest to win when the math said it was impossible. When Obama passes the threshold and becomes the nominee, Hillary needs to step up and admit that Obama won fair and square by the system that everyone knew from the start.

[Julie]

If Obama really cared about democracy he would not accept the delegates stolen from Hillary. It is all about him. I am not a Hillary supporter but I am appalled at how she has been treated just because she dared to run against Obama. I don't understand why you would support Obama if all he brings out in his supporters is hate.

[Adam]

As I explained above, I can't see how anyone can take the results of the Michigan primary as a democratic result. But setting that aside, Obama will win the nomination by a whole lot more than 8 delegates, so the 55 vs. 59 thing won't matter.

"I don't understand why you would support Obama if all he brings out in his supporters is hate."

I wouldn't understand that, either. Fortunately, Obama engenders an enormous amount of positive energy from his supporters.

While the Hillary supporters were demonstrating outside the hotel, do you know what Obama supporters in the area were doing? They weren't holding a counter-protest, or a rally of any kind. They were conducting a voter registration drive in Northern Virginia and Maryland.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

What's your point? hillary supporters (and even some Obama supporters from MI, FL and other states) were pissed about what the DNC had done.

What's wrong with a protest? It's our First Amendment right to protest wars, elections -- even the color suits our congressmen wear if we want.

[Deb Cupples]

Julie,

I agree with you re: Obama's not truly caring about democracy. It was, after all, his decision to remove his name from Michigan's ballot -- thus making the mess that we're in now with MI.

Fact is that the DNC had appeals procedures and should not have inaccurately told the public that MI and FL wouldn't count.

The DNC SHOULD have said, "If they lose their appeals, then FL and MI won't count."

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

You're right: MI did NOT have a fair primary -- and Obama is partly responsible for that by having taken his name off the ballot simply to appease the 4 early states (3 of which intentionally broke Rule 11a -- my birth state of NH being the biggest offender).

The other entity that shares blame: the DNC. It KNEW that it had an appeals process and KNEW that there was a chance that MI (and FL's) votes MIGHT ultimately count (at least in part).

DNC spokespeople, therefore, SHOULD have told the public that MI's and FL's votes would count ONLY IF they won appeals (instead of saying that said votes simply would not count).

And look, that appeals process has rendered the counting of some of those states' votes. It was ALWAYS a possibility, and the DNC knew it.

By not making accurate statements to the public, the DNC both misled the public AND subverted its own appeals process.

(I've argued the subversion point before, and no one can validly refute it because of the facts.)

I don't know what to say about the 1.3 million voters who MIGHT have come out if the DNC hadn't publicly mis-stated the situation.

But they DID have the choice to vote (like 1.7 million FL Dems and nearly 600,000 MI Dems did -- a record turnout for FL's primaries).

[Danny]

Hillary creamed the living you know what out of Obama in Pureto Rico! She is the nominee she will be President. All the games and cheating by Obama will not win him the nomination in the end. IF he doesn't drop out and decides to tear this party apart well then great. We need to get away from the two party system anyway.

[Adam]

Deb,

Isn't it equally valid to say Hillary is at fault because she DIDN'T take her name off the ballot? After all, if she had taken her name off, it's very likely the primary would have been cancelled and rescheduled. That's what happened with Bradley and Gore in Michigan in 2000.

Of course it's Hillary supporters' rights to protest. I was responding to Julie, who was claiming that Obama is feeding his supporters hate. Quite to the contrary, he has them out making a positive contribution to our democracy (registering voters).

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

My arguments are that:

1) NOBODY should have taken names off the ballot;

2) the DNC should NOT have said that the votes wouldn't count, because the appeals process allowed the possibility of the votes being counted.

And #2 is just what happened.

The DNC's giving the public the impression that there was NO way the votes would ever count was erroneous and pre-muddied the ultimate counting of votes.

We've already argued about Hillary's early statements (the votes won't count). Actually, about ALL candidates' early statements, because they all said that MI and FL wouldn't count.

We've already hashed out the context: she was answering the question, "Why are you keeping your name on the ballot?" (the others probably were too).

Her answer WAS disingenuous in that she likely knew that there was an appeals process.

I thought ALL the candidates were just trying to appease the DNC. You thought that they were trying to appease the early states.

Maybe we're both right, but the fact is that ALL candidates were spouting the (false) party line.

I'm guessing that they all figured that there was no harm, because MI and FL could work out a re-vote or appeal the RBC's initial decision.

If you disagree with my arguments about the earlier statements, fine. Just say so, and I'll drop the topic.

But I argued it days (or weeks) ago and would rather not simply repeat the arguments again.

Back to my current point: the DNC subverted its own appeals process. I mentioned that to you some days ago, because it's what I REALLY think.

That said, it just occurred to me that when Obama, Edwards, et. al., removed their names from MI's ballot, they aided the DNC in subverting the appeals process.

And I believe -- given that highly paid strategists tend to understand the DNC -- that those name-removing candidates did it with eyes wide open.

Furthermore, they did it for what they perceived as personal gain (i.e., to appease DNC and/or early states).

We've just rewarded a candidate for gaming the system in that way.

To me, the integrity of the process is very important -- in this case, more so than the results.

If Hillary's and Barack's positions on Florida were reversed, I would have fought on his side and dropped her as a candidate.

About mean-ness: please check out the links below. Understand that I DON'T think all Obama supporters are mean or uncivil.

And I do know that some Hillary supporters are mean and uncivil (at least in writing).

The people discussed in the Corrente link went beyond nasty writing and took it into the realm of public behavior (unless the writer is lying, which I doubt):

http://www.correntewire.com/more_from_rbc_meeting

It's long but worth a REAL read (no skipping of paras, or you'll miss stuff I'm pointing out). :)

It's a Hillary supporter who was at the RBC meeting and actually felt physically threatened by a couple Obama supporters.

That and Firedoglake has a horrible video response to Harriet Christian from a young guy who supports Obama.

It's the bottom video on the page (5th down, I think).

http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/01/harriet-christian-youtube-phemonemon-rorshach-test/

Ms. Christian wasn't even attacking the boy in the video: she was attacking the DNC and Obama.

Yet this kid took it personally enough to urge Ms. Christian to f*ck her own *ss. Not kidding.

And look at the way he re-cuts her statements at the end ("god Damn Hillary," when she actually said, "god Damn the Democrats.")

This is the kind of stuff that was going on back in January and hasn't stopped.

Yes, some Hillary supporters have gone nuts too -- but it REALLY was a reaction that took place after their initial shock over how some of Obama's (younger?) supporters were handling disagreements.

Again, this is NOT about you.

[Adam]

Do you care to respond to what *I* said? That is, that if Hillary had done what Obama and Edwards did, then the primary would have almost surely been canceled and rescheduled, as happened in 2000?

Again, there was a precedent for this. It was Hillary, not Obama or Edwards, who broke with precedent.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

You're taking a negative tone and apparently without having read my statements.

I DID respond: I said that NO candidates should have taken their names off the ballot.

New statement: IF all Dem candidates had taken their names off the ballot, the gesture would have been a slap to MI Dems that likely would have driven some to the Rs in November.

It would have been a bad P-R move, unless the candidates jointly made public statements that they were removing their names TO get a re-vote. And if MI's legislature had disagreed, the Dem-perpetrated slap in the face would have been perceived.

Remember, one house of MI's lege is Republican.

And don't forget this fact: the Dem candidates who removed their names WEREN'T trying to get a re-vote. They were trying to appease the 4 early states whose party leaders ASKED them to remove their names (and simultaneously make Hillary look bad in the process).

That's personal gain, not "let's ensure that MI has a primary."

[Adam]

"You're taking a negative tone and apparently without having read my statements.

I DID respond: I said that NO candidates should have taken their names off the ballot."

I did read your statement, but I don't see how it's a response. If I ask what you think of scenario A, saying you like scenario B more than scenario C is not an answer.

(A = nobody on the ballot, B = everyone on the ballot, C = what actually happened)

"New statement: IF all Dem candidates had taken their names off the ballot, the gesture would have been a slap to MI Dems that likely would have driven some to the Rs in November. "

Al Gore won Michigan in 2000, after he pulled his name from their ballot.

Again, you seem to be ignoring the meat of what I said - that this HAPPENED BEFORE in 2000, and Michigan was forced to cancel the primary when Gore AND Bradley pulled their names. They rescheduled the primary, it was held within the proper time frame, and the issue was averted.

If Hillary had removed her name, then there's almost no chance Michigan would have gone forward with the primary. They would have been forced to reschedule.

Hillary knew the history and she knew the precedent. She also knew the other major candidates had pulled their names. Had she followed suit, the crisis would probably have been averted.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

"Again, you seem to be ignoring the meat of what I said - that this HAPPENED BEFORE in 2000, and Michigan was forced to cancel the primary when Gore AND Bradley pulled their names. They rescheduled the primary, it was held within the proper time frame, and the issue was averted.

"If Hillary had removed her name, then there's almost no chance Michigan would have gone forward with the primary. They would have been forced to reschedule."

You're right in saying that it COULD have happened -- IF MI's split legislature was willing to give the Dems a break to get them out of hot water with the DNC.

But you're stating this speculation as fact -- and you didn't even address a major piece of the context: MI's legislative composition 2008 vs. in 2000.

BEFORE writing the argument, did you know what MI's legislative composition was back in 2000? I don't, but I do know that now it's split.

Might that have made a difference? I know FL's Rs wanted to see the Dems fight with the DNC: what makes you think MI's R's would be any different -- esp. since FL's Rs had shown the rest of the nation's Rs how to make trouble?

That you so SOMETIMES construct arguments based on speculation (e.g., your claiming that the DNC asked candidates to remove names from ballots, though they hadn't) is what makes me wonder SOMETIMES if you're not just leaping to defend Obama.

The assumptions that you made some weeks ago about Florida (without looking into its legislature or the paper trail issue) is another example.

I DON'T think you're disingenuous.

I do think that SOME of what you accept as "fact" is actually someone's else interp of "fact" (sometimes spun and twisted into a new shape).

[Adam]

"You're right in saying that it COULD have happened -- IF MI's split legislature was willing to give the Dems a break to get them out of hot water with the DNC."

I don't think there's any serious question that the primary would have been cancelled. Nobody holds a primary with no candidates. It would have been cancelled.

Given that, the Michigan legislature would probably have been able to get the 3 or 4 Republican votes needed to get a new state-funded primary. Republican legislators in borderline districts would not want to go back to their districts and have to defend their record as "disenfranchisers".

If they hadn't, then it's almost assured that there would be either a caucus or a party-funded primary, mail-in or otherwise. Unlike what really happened, the planning would have started no later than December, in stead of in March. There would have been time to put things together, and no legal challenges based on invalidating the old results.

"e.g. your claiming that the DNC asked candidates to remove names from ballots, though they hadn't"

Initially, I did not claim that; I simply stated that it seemed likely. Later, I learned that all the candidates signed a pledge to not participate in the primary. To me, that clearly means taking your name off the ballot if that's an option. And that was the precedent for how to act, which was set in 2000.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

"I don't think there's any serious question that the primary would have been cancelled. Nobody holds a primary with no candidates. It would have been cancelled."

Yes, it likely would have been canceled. Is there anything in Michigan election law stating that MI would have HAD to have another one?

That you think something is rational enough that you speculate it into being a fact doesn't actually make it a fact.

You're speculation would be more persuasive IF you 1) knew something about MI law, and 2) knew that MI's lege was similarly controlled in 2000 as it is now.

I don't know much about MI, so I avoid making args. Why set myself up to be proven wrong?

"Initially, I did not claim that; I simply stated that it seemed likely. Later, I learned that all the candidates signed a pledge to not participate in the primary. To me, that clearly means taking your name off the ballot if that's an option. And that was the precedent for how to act, which was set in 2000."

Yes, you DID claim that. The first time I remember your bringing it up, you stated that the DNC asked the candidates to remove names (stating that Obama had simply been following DNC's request).

AFTER I questioned your "facts" (i.e., as I remember, I asked you on what date it happened and if you had a link to a DNC press release stating the purported request) you said that you weren't sure.

But the fact remains, you proffered it as a fact in the first place, suggesting that you believed that it was a fact.

That the "fact" turned out to be wrong suggests that the basis for your felieve was either a guess on your part or misinformation from another party.

About the Pledge

Before we get into a long debate, let's clear up the fundamentals. With WHOM did the candidates sign a pledge? BEFORE making your assumption and argument, did you actually read the pledge's text?

If you have it handy, would you send me a link to the text of the pledge?