« Obama On The Air In Kentucky | Home | Newsweek Poll: Obama's Lead Over Clinton Down Since PA Loss -- But He's Still Ahead »

Clinton-Backer McAuliffe Threatened To Strip Rogue Delegates In 2004 Cycle

In an interesting example of how the views of many high-profile Clinton supporters have changed regarding the status of rogue primaries, blogger Mark Nickolas has spotted a key passage from Terry McAuliffe's 2007 book.

McAuliffe recounted how he stared down Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) attempt to move up the Michigan primary during the 2004 cycle, and held firm on his threat to strip the state of delegates:

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

McAuliffe is currently a vocal advocate for seating Michigan's claimed delegates, and for counting the popular votes for Hillary Clinton in that state's primary, in which Barack Obama had taken his name off the ballot.


38 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

O gee, Terry McAuliffe is a lying, duplicitous snake.

I'm shocked.


God I want to see the Clintons take this scum with them when they leave.


user-pic

Somebody here is a duplicitous snake.

Is it the writer who excerpted out the fact that McAuliffe's threat was a 50% penalty, not total exclusion?

Or is it the writer who excerpted out the fact that McAuliffe was responding to Levin's threat to move the primary of his own volition?

With those facts omitted, theeh story appears to present an instance of hypocrisy.

With those facts included ... there's not much there, is there?

Then why in 2000 did both Al Gore and Bill Bradley take their names off the Michigan ballot when the state moved up its primary to before Super Tuesday in violation of DNC rules?

The half penalty doesn't make sense in your context.

I'm not sure how "Levin's threat to move up the primary of his own volition" is any different from what happened this year.

As to half vs. full penalty, that is obviously a difference, but McAuliffe's position was obviously that any rules set by the DNC would be followed - he's pretty clearly being hypocritical here.

they all lie - "with such ease it's troubling"

Welcome to The Clinton Rules: Act like past positions never happened and take whatever stance will help you win. Or in other words, lie like the devil with a straight face.

HYPPOOCCRRIIITTEEE!

Lies and hypocrisy are contagious. The CDC should shut down the Clinton campaign before it spreads any further.

user-pic

Say Erik - ?


You might want to check into that fraud trial in LA. There's a link to the story in the comments below.


Bill and Hillary are in court again. Over fraud. In fund raising.


Maybe we can make Wright go away and fill up the news with something with some substance for a change? Whaddya think?

Come on.

No one has done more for disenfranchised voters than Barack Obama.

DISENFRENCHFRY!!!!

user-pic

And Ickes not only voted for the sanctions, he also worked in 1988 to have DNC members stripped of their superdelegate status (for the benefit of his man Jesse Jackson in that race).

“Yes, I stripped them, and I was working for Jesse Jackson at the time and we thought automatic [i.e., super] delegates represented too much of an institutional interest and they didn’t recognize the qualities of someone like him,” Ickes told me in a phone interview a few days ago.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8684.html

"I am Hillary Clinton and I approve this message" - facts only count, when they are in her favor, votes only count, when they were cast for her, she does not lie, she misspeaks, she only goes negative in defense to Obama's negative campaign, she leads in the popular vote, because MI and FL voters should not be "disenfranchised" - and there were zero votes in MI for Obama and the "uncommitted" in FL of course did not want to vote for Obama - one begins to ask, whether Ms. Clinton's repeated pattern of delusioned reasoning are not the symptoms of latent schizophrenia. She is absolutely stunning, not in the sense of a resilient fighter, but in the sense of pathological self-deception. Sure she is "ready from day one" for the presidency, since it is rightfully hers and it is abominable for Obama and all these misguided voters who were deceived by him and voted for him, to deny her birth right to be be president. God bless America, have mercy on her and spare her the horror of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

user-pic

Amen.

George Bush with tits.

wow, you are a classy one. a true representation of barack obama and the rest of his supporters.

hope and change indeed!

Well, there you go. Let's strip Hillary of all her delegates.

user-pic

O let's!

Works for me!

Talking about liers and hypocrites . Did anyone read the column by Colbert King today in the Washington Post? Of all the people who were crucial in the Penn primary, who was the closest to "denounced and rejected" Farrahkan? Not Obama. Ed Randell, the Gov.. He provides quotes and videos. It is worth the read. If Hillary hammers you for something, it is because she has done it herself first.

user-pic

It just shows yet again that Clinton's team doesn't have any actual positions on pretty much anything other what is in Hillary's best interest at the moment.

Neither do they have any shame.

user-pic

The entire Clinton cabal is a parasite on the Democratic Party. If by some injustice Hillary bullies the nomination through a superdelegate majority to override the majority of elected delegates and votes, the party will doubtless be destroyed for a generation.

Add into the mix Clinton's repeated and obvious prevarications throughout the campaign along with her already historically high 49% negative ratings, we will be witness to an unelectable train-wreck of a candidate in November.

If they really are rational beings who will act in their own self-interest, the Superdelegates should get organized and make the necesary dramatic and decisive move to deny Clinton now.

TO ALL UNPLEDGED SUPERDELEGATES - Cut off the oxygen to this narcissistic, power hungry, delusional, self-centered, lying, Machiavellian home-wrecker of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. Please.

I'll put you down as "leaning Obama."

user-pic

Edwards, Byden, Dodd or Richardson would have sufficed. So Obama it is. And this is from an admirer of the Clinton's from their earlier days. There is nothing left to admire about these people.

I've seen her negatives as high as 58% in a poll quoted by tweety last week....

58%?!!! wow...

Egads thats some high negatives...

user-pic

There's almost a twisted zen quaity to Clinton and her minions.

There is no past.

There is no future.

There is only the present and whatever will help her right this moment, damn the truth and the damn the consequences.

A perfect description.

This is hardly a surprise - McAuliffe is working for Clinton now, and she needs all the delegates she can get. Don't let a silly thing like previous public pronouncements stand in the way of your goals!

I think we need to start a campaign appealing to the superdelegates ourselves and we could also appeal to those who have endorsed Senator Obama to do more to throw their weight behind him... start getting some unifying going on...
I feel like Senator Obama is out their fighting for the leadership of our country and I am willing to write 300 letters or do something like that to help.

I guess I could suggest it to moveon.org. Any other suggestions...?

These people are a bunch of thugs, it is really that simple.

Everyday, they give you one more reason to distrust them, or if you like, HATE THEIR FUCKING GUTS!

Where are the Clinton supporters, and trolls, on these fact-based anti Clinton blogs? They are so fervent in defense when the slightest doubt of facts remain, but silent when the negative blog topic is on record and undeniable.

What say you, HRC brethren, of this quote, spoken on a few months ago? Doesnt matter? He speaks millions of words? Its true the argument is BS but she's a better candidate anyway? I'd like to know.

Thanks for posting Eric.

To paraphrase Colbert's famous speech to the White House Correspondents, facts have a well known anti-Hillary bias.

Finally!

Andrew Sullivan had this days ago.

Mark Shields had this several weeks ago.

Actually...it makes no difference at all.

Granted, if you take it to mean that Levin couldn't make a move on his own, certainly the threat didn't mean much since Levin didn't, in fact, have the power to move the date by himself.

But the half vs full delegate stripping is all of the same. McAuliffe was saying that the party would remove their delegates, and they had every right to, and had all the authority to that they needed.

How is that different from now, except for the fact that it disadvantages his preferred candidate??

The "Zen quality" is evident in "negative campaigning" perhaps more than anywhere else:

From: "Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html

"Friday, April 25, 2008

Clinton, Obama, and Negative Campaigning



Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories.

Geoff Garin, the replacement on the Clinton team for Mark Penn, claims in today's WP that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours".

Garin, who seems to be a genuine and decent professional who has been dropped to the helm of a listing ship, attempts to right it not by changing the direction of the boat, but by trying to reverse reality.

Let's take a look:

Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Speech:

"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America. And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans -- they deserve all the heat we can give them."

November, 2007:

New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07] NBC's First Read:

MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]


December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):

Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]

Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]

New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]

New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]

And what did the voters think?

Which Candidate is the most negative?


Hillary Clinton 21%

John Edwards 9%

Dennis Kucinich 9%

Barack Obama 8%

Joe Biden 3%

Mike Gravel 3%

Christopher Dodd 3%

Bill Richardson 3%

None/Not sure 43%



Source: The Iowa Poll

[Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]


What about after Iowa? She surely must have changed her tactics then...

After Iowa Loss, Clinton Ramps Up Attacks:

January 06, 2008

AP: "Hillary Clinton Comes Out Swinging, Politeness Lost Along With Iowa Caucuses" [AP, 1/6/08]

Los Angeles Times: "Clinton lets arrows fly at Obama"..."Staggered by her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, the New York senator was the aggressor throughout a 90-minute session" [LA Times, 1/6/08]


Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night" [Washington Post, 1/6/08]

AP: "Clinton criticizes Obama in NH mailer" [AP, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "Clinton sharpens attack on Obama" [Newsday, 1/5/08]

Reuters: "Obama under attack ahead of New Hampshire debates" [Reuters, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "After weeks of playing nice in Iowa, the Clinton camp sharpened their elbows when the campaign went wheels-down in New Hampshire, readying TV ads targeting Obama that were expected to focus on health care and his legislative record." [Newsday, 1/4/08]

Washington Post: But she and her aides also signaled their intention to now ratchet up the race, aggressively countering Obama in the five days ahead. She is also now planning to draw even sharper distinctions between herself and Obama on the question of change, after watching voters who wanted a new direction select her main rival for the nomination on Thursday night. [Washington Post, 1/4/08]

Well...that must have been just a momentary reaction to January's surprising defeat. She surely didn't continue that strategy...

The State: "Clinton camp hits Obama -- Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama, remarks about King" [1/12/08]

New York Times: "Clinton's Campaign Sees Value In Keeping Former President In Attack Mode" [1/25/08]

Greenville News: Ex-Democratic Official Criticizes Clintons' Attacks On Obama [1/23/08]

First Read: "Clinton Justifies War Vote, Hits Obama" [1/13/08]

Politico: "Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama" [1/13/08]


Perhaps it became more substantive and dignified in February:


Feb 25, 2008

2008 Presidential Election

Clinton Circulates Pic of Obama in Somali Garb: Report:

For some, Barack Obama's "Hussein" middle name has been something worth picking on. For others, it has been pushing the unsubstantiated rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Obama is or was a "radical Muslim." But this - this is truly low. ..Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said, "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

CNN: "Clinton Sharpens Attacks On Obama" [CNN, 2/14/08]

Concord Monitor: "Clinton Attack Still Riles Some" [2/4/08]

Guardian Unlimited: "Clinton Goes On Attack As Obama Closes Gap" [2/3/08]

March:

The Politico, Ben Smith, March 2:

"A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question...

“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said."


April:

MSNBC: April 14: Clinton Attacks Obama On Air

Sun-Sentinal: April 22: Clinton attacks, Obama hopes

And what of the recent words of Mr. Garin himself?

From the April 20 Meet the Press:

MR. AXELROD: ...Did you not put a negative ad on this weekend in Philadelphia? The--100 percent negative ad attacking Senator Obama?

MR. GARIN: No. I don’t believe we did.

MR. AXELROD: Yeah, you did. Go back and check with your people, and it was, it’s an ad on lobbying, and it’s circulating...

MR. GARIN: It’s not. It, it ends up, I believe, with...

MR. AXELROD: No, no, it’s 100 percent negative ad, Geoff. Go back and ask your people. I understand you’re new in the campaign, and I love you, man, you’re a good friend of mine. I know you to be a good, positive person.

MR. GARIN: Right.

MR. AXELROD: But I think that there’s some vestiges of the old regime still in place.

MR. GARIN: Well, look, when, when, when...

(Garin never answers this question--Axelrod later in broadcast: "The—well, first of all, that’s what’s in your negative ad that you didn’t know about in Philadelphia.")

Note: This of course leaves self-inflicted attacks (i.e. sniper fire) aside. Incidentally, while I have known people to err when they are tired (for example to say "sniker" instead of "sniper"), I have never seen anyone invent and repeat an entire episode that did not occur as a result of exhaustion--although, of course, this commonly does occur when people are completely asleep.

Hendrik Hertzberg, in this weeks "Campaign Trail" (New Yorker) has noted the tragic and inevitable game here, whereby Obama, who has tried to run a different type of campaign--explicitly principled and positive--has been drawn into defense by the incessant attack. This attempt to now flip and revise history in this very fundamental manner is something that we have seen in our recent Presidential past--and is something that should give us pause.

From:

Head of State:

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html


dude, just post a link.

Well, they didn't get close to Boston any way. Romney spooked everybody with his traffic warning that nobody came.

folks, there's a difference between threatened penalization and actual penalization. in 2004, terry mccauliffe had the clout to make states believe his threats and states complied in toto with the dnc rules on primary and caucus dates.

in 2008, clearly, howard dean does not/did not have the same power of persona to garner state compliance.

quite frankly, all objective analysis now properly acknowledges that the iowa/new hampshire 1st scenario is not fair and no longer feasible going forward: florida and michigan and new hamphire are just the tip of the iceberg for states revolting against the current unfair system (for those who don't know: n.h. was supposed to follow nevada according to the approved dnc rules, but n.h. bucked those rules and moved it's date up behind iowa...and, oh yeah, suffered no penalty from the dnc for so doing).

but the bottom line for democrats, at least those who are truly concerned about winning in november, is michigan and florida voters went to the polls and voted. the presidential election was not the only issue on the ballot for either state and voters came out in record numbers to cast votes. both of the above clearly evidence that those states voters (1) were following this race and candidates closely as all the contest to date evidence, and (2) real votes were cast for real candidates and issues and have been certified by both states' election officials.

to poke either of these states' voters in the eyeball and tell them "you're votes don't count"...or "your votes won't count in the same fashion and with the same proportionality breakouts as other states"...is political suicide for november in those states. in an election this energized and with voters this focused, you don't get declarations about sitting out the november vote or voting for the opposition candidate unless folks in the main mean exactly what they say.

and if you think obama (and by implication should he be the nominee, the party) has a "bitter" problem now, that problem is going to be exponential if a resolution for michigan and florida isn't achieved, achieved soon and achieved along lines that essentially ratifies the votes already taken or ratifies a "re-do vote" arranged by the candidates.

those are facts. those are realities. both are things i realize obama-ites find difficult to swallow about the world of real-politiks, but it is what it is.

and the question for democratic leadership and super delegates is: what is the party going to do about it?

Ahhh, the satire that has become the Clinton campaign continues...More pleez.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address