Wolfson: Even If Florida And Michigan Aren't Seated, An Obama Victory Would Be Legit
On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson flatly rejected the notion that Camp Hillary is pushing for a full seating of Florida and Michigan in order to ensure that Obama's win is seen as somehow tainted should the delegations not be seated.
Wolfson was asked by Slate's John Dickerson if an Obama victory would be "counterfeit" if the delegations aren't seated -- and the votes aren't counted -- in the manner Hillary hopes.
"I wouldn't use the word you used," Wolfson answered. "This is not about tainting the nominating process. It's about an effort to secure maximum participation from everyone who came out and voted."
Wolfson added: "That's not what Senator Clinton is thinking, not what we're thinking. I wouldn't characterize it in the way that you characterized it."
That would appear to be a flat-out assertion that Hillary's position is that even if she doesn't get the votes counted as she hopes to, Obama's victory would be nonetheless completely legitimate.
Late Update: Here's the audio from the conference call:
Comments (208)
But let's keep in my mind that a flat out assertion by a Clinton is changeable from one moment to the next.
May 22, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on their behavior the last couple of days, I might add at the end of your sentence, "depending on whether they've taken their meds."
May 22, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or keep in mind that this is only a flat out assertion by Greg Sargent. Wolfson says he wouldn’t use the term “counterfeit” and this magically becomes a flat out assertion that regardless of how FLA and MI are dealt with, an Obama victory would be legit. With this interpretation, Wolfson is basically saying that not seating FLA or MI would be legit.
May 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the pattern of their kitchen sink campaign is pretty clear: Good cop/bad cop.
Bill will say very bad things, then Hill says things that are rotated 180 degrees away. Ickes mutters "Obama's a Muslim!" and Wolfson talks about all those wild rumors being circulated by Republicans.
Or there's the other evolutionary track: For two months every person on the Clinton campaign says she's qualified, McCain's qualified, but Obama knows how to speak without drooling. Then, when a third of her supporters say they will vote "McCain" if (when) Obama is nominated, and Hillary is all so "we'll all come together" (after she completes her death march to the convention floor, all the while happily dividing everybody between up, down, left, right, black, white — and giving Florida shout-outs about how her campaign is on the same level as the fight for abolition or the suffragette movement).
I really wish I was just being snarky about that last bit, but that is what she was saying... .
May 22, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That leaves a lot of wiggle room for explanations.
May 22, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's how I read it as well. Isn't that what politicians say when they think that the words you've used are over the top but they essentially agree with you otherwise?
May 22, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton Campaign continues to reveal itself a feckless ball of confusion
That's the most shocking development of this entire campaign.
May 22, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary campaign: "It is absolutely, incredibly, undeniably necessary and imperative that this thing must happen [i.e., Hillary staying in the race, Hillary getting the nomination, the seating of FL and MI, etc.] . . .
. . . except if you ask us specifically, we will admit that if the incredibly important thing doesn't happen, no bad consequences will result."
May 22, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way any of this makes sense is in some sort of bizarro lawyerly world where this is supposed to be how you negotiate/bludgeon your opponent in giving you what you want to save face.
My bet is that behind the scenes, everyone, including Bill (but not including Hillary, to maintain deniability and the farce and con she's foisting on her poor supporters) is laying on every argument they can to land her the Veep's spot.
I think that's the worst thing for Obama's reputation and ability to govern later on, but I'd bet my left leg that that's what's behind all this insanity.
May 22, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is an overly optmistic interpretation of Wolfson's words, and of the Clinton campaign's attitudes at this point.
May 22, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree. I did not read anything that Wolfson said as either an implicit or explicit admission that Obama's victory would be "legit" avec ou sans Michigan and Florida. All he said is that he wouldn't characterize it as "counterfeit." I am not one to flame against Greg/Eric with their generous bon mots toward the Clinton Campaign, but Greg really is making a Beamonesque leap here in his translation.
May 22, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush/Clinton rules: read that to mean that is exactly what they are saying - that word Wolfson says he wouldn't use.
Yeah, right, Wolfson. You and the rest are masters at Karl Rove-Speak - I get that now. You lying sack of shit.
May 22, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Parse this one! Wolfson may SAY that their camp is not pushing for a "full seating of Florida and Michigan". But this does NOT mean that whatever "compromise" is negotiated prior to the convention will be ACCEPTED by their campaign. HE DIDN'T SAY THAT. There's your "tell".
My guess: all "negotiations" are, in fact, a dog-and-pony show. Hillary will reject them in the end.
How do we know this? SHE SAID SO. Take her on face value! SHE'S TAKING IT TO THE CONVENTION. And she CAN'T take it to the convention, if she already has a deal worked out, in which she cannot POSSIBLY WIN.
We're being bamboozled. She's counting on her Credentials Committee to keep the criterion of what even constitutes "victory" open and hanging like a chad, right through the convention.
And if this harms the eventual nominee (how could it NOT?), that's okay because once again, LISTEN TO THE WOMAN. Take her on face value!
She said that she was qualified to be prez; McCain was qualified to be prez; and Obama "gave a speech" (in context, meaning, "... is NOT!").
The Hillary brand of Democrat is the second head of the same military-industrial hydra that produced McCain. If she can't get the nod, she'd flat-out rather see the other head get the presidency.
And as abhorrent as that sounds to many Democrats, if you're one of those, you have no choice except to believe what she's telling you, in so many words... you're just not listening! "The man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest".
Finally, if you haven't seen Rachel Maddow's treatise on the math, today, this is absolutely required reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-maddow/clinton-to-the-convention_b_103078.html
May 22, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But don't forget... Edwards was swearing to God in Heaven above that he was in the fight to the end...
right up until the day he quit.
If she ever hints at weakness at this point -- which would only be the truth, but this is a Clinton we're talking about -- people would run from her to Obama in the millions and she'd be left in a darkened theater, talking to the empty seats.
May 22, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now there's a term for the books...
Rovespeak = doublespeak on steroids...
(Or maybe v*agra)
May 22, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Sargent mischaracterized the "nuclear option." What the nuclear option is, is to go to the convention with a full floor fight over the seating of the MI/Fl delegations, thus leaving the nomination fight right to August and the party divided over the summer.
May 22, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a problem with the Sargent vid on the front page--we've been told the Clinton's are reasonable before, and then she goes all wacky with statements that synonymize "hard-working Americans" with "white Americans", or the Florida primary with Zimbabwe. Sargent believes he's correct, but we have litte to nothing to base a belief that Clinton will act sensibly here.
May 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
THen why is Harold Ickes talking about having full seating of the MI/FL delegates along with Hillary Clinton? His words run counter to hers.
May 22, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are doing, Wolfson, is deliberately and methodically trying to taint the nominating process.
You liar.
May 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, he says this now to a bunch of gullible reporters who will dutifully report everything they say.
There are three things in life that are certain: death, taxes, and the members of the American media to believe and dutifully report what they are told.
Watch what Hillary and the Clintonistas do, not what they say. They are going to fight to have Michigan and Florida seated exactly as is, with ZERO delegates for Obama. If they don't get this, then they will file a lawsuit, which will quickly be followed by a class-action suit out of Michigan and Florida.
The goal now is to poison the well to render Obama unelectable. If they can't get the nomination they WANT him to lose this November. How anyone could look at their actions - not their words, their actions - and draw a different conclusion is beyond me.
Happily for the Clinton campaign, they have gullible reporters like John Dickerson who only report words, not actions.
May 22, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the background to the threats around the nuclear option and MI/Fl, and the attack on the Dem. party as being sexist and like Zimbabwe. Al Giordano is reporting that Hillary asked for the VP slot and was turned down. The nuclear option is her response for leverage and blow back.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248#comment-40654
"The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process."
May 22, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO!
I can't decide which I like better - the idea that this happened and he politely declined, or that this is another big ass lie out of the Clinton Campaign.
May 22, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if she was this vindictive against Bill after all of his "indiscretions".
May 22, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"her response for leverage and blow back."
May 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, I hope so!!
May 22, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would certainly explain the change in tone and tactics.
May 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do not trust anything that Clinton and her campaign say! Let the committee make the decision and let them prove that they will do the right thing here. The Clintons will take and take and take all they can and use it. Obama is the winner and he can go forward but to compromise with the Clintons is a risk and an acknowledgement that she has a case here...
May 22, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the fact that they've disregarded prior statements and assertions to advance this argument in the first place (voting to strip them of their delegates in the first place, then agreeing not to participate or campaign in either event, saying that the vote in Michigan would not count for anything), I'm not believing a single word from this pack of mendacious and politically craven jackals.
Fuck Wolfson and the rest of the Clinton campaign.
May 22, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But seriously, PH, tell us how you really feel.
"Mendacious and politically craven jackals". That's a really nice phrase.
I'd add: "Pathologically cynical" to that, somehow.
May 22, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm just tired of the intellectual dishonesty being pumped out of the Clinton campaign and then passed forth by the media without so much as an iota of incredulity. It's just irresponsible and underscores the EXACT reason why we are stuck in that clusterfuck that is the Iraq War.
There I go again . . . Serenity now . . . Serentity now . . .
May 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No apologies necessary.
What this country needs, more than anything else at this point, is for the media to stand up and start yelling "bullshit!" when politicians talk nonsense. I'm not holding my breath until that happens, though.
May 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Wolfson, what about the votes of those who did not vote because they trusted the rules? Should they be disenfranchised in favor of those who voted in spite of the rule-breaking in the process?
May 22, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS is exactly what has to be repeated over and over and over until the media starts mentioning it in news stories. Don't let the Clintons drive such a false and incomplete narrative.
May 22, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical Wolson conference call.
"Of course we're not doing exactly what we're obviously doing."
May 22, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got it.
May 22, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be legitimate, as far as we know.
May 22, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Severus, throughout the whole saga, I always believed in you. I just knew you were righteous, and you were.
May 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, why the apologia? Wolfson saying that the process would not be "counterfeit" is not, in Woflson/Clintonspeak, a statement that it would be "legitimate." Clintons have parsed things far more finely than saying that an election can be "illegitimate" without being "counterfeit."
May 22, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not legitimate in a Democracy.
Count all the votes. Period.
May 22, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Count all votes in DNC sanctioned events.
May 22, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The votes have been counted in those states that have participated.
Every other claim is specious nonsense. And anyone who repeats it has just followed Karl Rove down the Rabbit Hole into Wonderland, where every day is backwards day.
She and her people have constructed a Mirage - a vast and faceless mass of desperate Americans who have had their right to vote for a delegate to be sent to a convention where said delegate could be lobbied to change their mind - taken from them.
Alas - the republic will fall, no doubt.
May 22, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that include counting the Michigan "uncommitted" votes as votes for Obama, which they clearly were?
No, of course not, because, as we have been told, "he didn't have to take his name off the ballot." Nope, even though those votes were cast specifically against her, those votes actually count as votes for Hillary.
May 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just held an election in my basement - Obama won in a landslide. I'm sorry that Hillary chose not to participate. Do you think the DNC will allow the vote to stand? No? Why do they hate Democracy?
May 22, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we all know that once this is over, Hillary will deny ever having done anything, and will be the biggest Obama booster there is. One thing about her, she will not hesitate to change her tone on a dime.
May 22, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope like hell you're correct.
May 22, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on man. Just put her under the imperius curse.
May 22, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no. It's about Clinton winning the nomination, first and foremost. At its heart, this isn't a voter advocacy campaign.
May 22, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's about an effort to secure maximum participation from everyone who came out and voted."
What? Everyone who "came out and voted" already participated month ago. Unless the proposal is to seat over 1 million additional delegates at the convention in August, what additional "participation" is there to maximize?
Here's an question. Let's say they go into the meeting and resolve this quasi-fairly -- say, by giving Obama all the uncommitted delegates in Michigan and giving all the delegates in both Florida and Michigan half a vote. With the Florida and Michigan situation resolved, the nominee will essentially be decided, and 90 percent of the rest of the superdelegates will endorse Obama. At that point, I think Obama would have substantially more than the number of delegates needed to win -- could he then, as a sign of graciousness, agree to seat the entire Michigan and Florida delegations the way Hillary wants them seated (since it would no longer make any difference)?
May 22, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If those two states aren't seated according to the rules, it would be legitimate, because it follows the rules. It would also mean that two legitimate state elections with certified results would not count. Therefore the official nation-wide totals won't reflect all the votes. That makes the overall results not legitimate. So there is legitimate and there is legitimate.
May 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No primary, whether Republican or Democrat, is subject to the Constitution. It's a party event, subject to party rules. Any contest (primary or caucus) in violation of the applicable party rules are subject to sanction. In this case, Clinton's supporters imposed the death penalty.
Thus these primaries were unsanctioned events and therefore illegitimate and did not award delegates. None of the votes cast were legitimate. And luckily, the DNC nomination is awarded based on DELEGATES not nation-wide vote totals. I'm sure you knew that until you drunk down the Clinton Cocktail.
May 22, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. The DNC can at it's whim decide to disregard states entirely and not recognize the votes of millions of voters. Just because something is not unconstitutional does not make it right. You guys really put the DEMOCRAT in democratic party. Way to go D48+TerritoriesNC!
Florida and Michigan will have a chance to have their voices heard in November though and I am sure they will not forget who was trying to shut them out of the nomination process completely.
May 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to Clinton talking points, Florida and Michigan voters may blame people who had nothing to do with this decision. Direct your anger at the elected officials in Florida and Michigan who chose to ignore the rules that every one agreed to.
To blame it on the Obama campaign or the DNC is intellectually dishonest. You're better than that. At least, you've always seemed that way.
May 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My position was always agree to revote in MI & FL ASAP so it didn't gome down to this travesty. It was always known that MI & FL were going to be seated representatively - that 50/50 ish was going nowhere. A revote would have put Hillary at a disadvantage because Obama was better known and gaining support. He likely would have performed better. But Obama's campaign was the one who sought to delay and put off resolution until the nomination was in sight because they feared allowing Hillary to catchup.
These aren't HRC talking points - this is me as a democrat knowing my party is better than this.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/top_hillary_donor_directly_pre.php
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/florida_dems_circulating_maili.php
May 22, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrect. Obama always said that DNC decides and he is happy with whatever that is. In Michigan, it was the Michigan State Legislature who turned down a revote.
May 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
{Sigh} Your faux outrage is misdirected yet again. As I suggested to you yesterday, take your concerns up with Michigan and Florida Democratic parties and ask them why they decided to play chicken with their primaries. And while you are at it, ask Howard Ickes and the rest of his fellow HRC supporters (13 out of the 30) who voted to impose the death penalty on Florida (to discourage MI) and MI (for calling their bluff).
And for the last fucking time, primaries are party events and therefore governed by party rules. To the extent a primary doesn't comply with the party rules, it is an unsanctioned event and therefore is not counted toward the nominating contest. As such, the votes count, but don't, however, result in the awarding of delegates. Everyone knew that UP FRONT.
There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional happening here.
And please, don't respond. I know you can't refute what I wrote and will just spin off into some other non-sequitor/spin bullshit to express your faux outrage. Save it for someone who gives a fuck.
May 22, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Blame it on Ickes!
May 22, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The party rules allow for the states to be petiotion the committee for a resolution which is exactly what they were doing. I don't know why you can't get it through your head that peitioning for a revote or to be seated IS part of the rules of the punishment imposed by the DNC. Obama's campaign is responsible for delaying the resolution. Why should he benefit from his cowardice. Florida should be seated in full. Michigan split 50/50 since he was not the ballot. There's a fair compromise.
May 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree with that - seat FL as is and split MI 50/50. (Didn't Obama agree to a 65-55 delegate split of MI a few weeks ago that Hillary rejected? I don't get that.)
I don't love the of not punishing bad behavior, but at this point I just want this thing done.
May 22, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for being reasonable. I have always supported a resolution that doesn't favor Hillary or Obama. It's the democratic voters of MI & FL that really matter. Now that the Obama campaign is changing it's tune, perhaps he should send an e-mail blast out to his supporters that it's okay for MI & FL to rejoin the union. All this screw the voters of MI & FL stuff needs to stop if we want a real shot at winning in November whomever the nominee may be.
May 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the "Hillary supporter" in question doesn't lead off with the bullshit of "Obama took his name off of the MI ballot because he knew he'd lose so sucks for him" it makes it much easier for me to be reasonable. haha.
I put "Hillary supporter" in quotes because I refuse to believe any honest supporter of Hillary believes that line.
May 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re-read my post. Then highlight where I said anything about prohibiting them from petitioning to have their rogue primaries seated. Nothing there, huh? That's cause I'm not making that argument.
My point was that the DNC decision wasn't arbitrary or based on some whim. It was in response to the state parties decision. It was both logical and foreseeable.
As for the revote, the obstacle wasn't Obama, but the proposal floated by the Pro-Clinton forces--namely prohibiting anyone who voted in the Republican Primary from participating in the revote. Of course the court decision made that possibility impossible. And your dear Senator Clinton REFUSED to allow Michigan to hold a caucus--something they have considerable experience with.
So, again, direct your faux outrage at the parties responsible--which doesn't include Senator Obama.
May 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can make that argument about Michigan which is why I have conceded split the vote 50-50 (worse than the Obama campaign's original offer).
You cannot make that argument about Florida because the party didn't set the date - the republican legislature (which has almost a 2-1 majority) and governor did. Yes the democratic state sneator cosponsored the bill to move the primary up from March, but they did not have a definitive date set when he did so. when the legislation by republicans set the date in violation of DNC rules, florida democrats attemtped an amendment which failed. Again - the party is not responsible for an election date set by law. Did florida democrats support the law - absolutely as it had other election reforms like paper trail of voting etc. It was an all or nothing bill and they didn't have the leverage to change the date. In addition since SC moved their primary up, the rule of the 4 first states was upheld. Both candidates were on the ballot. Record turnout. Caucuses are nice, but they are harder to participate when you are older, working class/blue collar etc vs younger folks and college students who turnout enforce in a caucus. Are you going to discount an election with 1.7 million people for a caucus of 500,000 to be generous and consider that fair? I certainly don't.
FL & MI are two very different cases and the only people refusing to see it are people so blinded by backing Obama that they can't see the basic principle of what is right anymore. Breathe & take a step back. What is the right thing for the PARTY not what is right for Obama or Clinton. FL & MI are almost a moot right now since the obama campaign has been content to kick the can down the road until they nbelieve they see victory. So now they can focus on the right thing to do vs justifying the disenfranchsement of millions of voters.
May 22, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad, misdirected anger.
Are you going to "remember" the disaster that was the last 8 years when you decide to punish Obama this fall and stay home or vote for McCain?
May 22, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to the polls to vote because Vito Fossella is my congressman (I am so proud!) and I want to increase the democratic majority to a veto proof margin. I live in NY so I will write in for Hillary because I have the luxury of knowing NY is going to Obama anyway. I will encourage Hillary supporters in red states, swing states, purple states, states where Obama's not ahead by a hughe margin to get a post it called NOT MCCAIN and out that over Obama's name to pull the lever if that's what they need to vote for Obama.
May 22, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wolfson's trying to have it both ways. Maybe Greg is right not to let him.
May 22, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want to explain that paradox, Einstein?
May 22, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was something great about the Clintons. It's very dim, but remember. So long ago...
May 22, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems so much more likely to me now, hrebendorf, that I was fooled into thinking there was something great about them.
May 22, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans were so damn awful during the Bill Clinton administration that, by comparison, the Clintons looked good. The bar was pretty low.
Granted, given the current administration, the bar is even lower, but I think some of the goodwill towards the Clintons was the product of the times, and not necessarily the quality of the Clinton performance.
If that makes any sense.
May 22, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Likewise, Obama has set a very high bar for all this. I cannot believe he hasn't lost his shit on-camera yet over this. And it doesn't seem like he's different off-camera.
May 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was us versus the Republicans. I can't for the life of me remember why I thought the Clintons were "us" though. Maybe it was all those millions I made in the stock market... *:o)
May 22, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must confess that if straight up personal finances were the measure of my vote - I'd vote for Bush because we benefited from the bogus tax cuts.
I want them rolled back.
May 22, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought we'd all agreed to sing kumbayah and stop it with the Clinton hate//they are the root of all eveil. Guess someone hasn't gottent the memo. PS. Dressing cats in rabbit ears is a sign of a sick sick mind.
May 22, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, what a nightmare this is... And it makes no sense now. Even if they seat the delegations the way HRC wants, Obama still wins the pledged delegates. What is the point? It's insane, it's monomania. HRC is saying: I am the Democratic Party, the Party is Me. It's like she's single handedly saying if you don't give me Florida, I will ensure that Florida never goes to Obama in the general election.
May 22, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the ol' Good Cop, Bad Cop routine.
May 22, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's all keep in mind what's actually happening here. The LAST think Clinton wants is for the FL and MI situation to be resolved, even if it's in her favor. Even if both delegations get seated as-is she still won't close the gap in delegates. This is about sowing confusion, pure and simple, which is why she continues to stick to only the most unreasonable solution and why she'll fight whatever compromise the RBC comes up with this weekend.
May 22, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are spot on!
May 22, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
My trust in Clinton's ability to chill and work for party unity has been, uh, tainted.
May 22, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vote will be counted at 50%, just like the DNC rules call for in situations like these.
All of this might be for the VP slot, but
Hillary will not be the VP.
Not a chance in hell. This isn't Kennedy/Johnson.
The Supers have also had enough of the Clinton's.
All she's doing now is embarrassing herself, the supers who haven't bolted and party leadership.
She isn't going to be rewarded with VP. She might get something, but it ain't that.
All her hysteria about FL & MI is a last grasp temper tantrum of the the dying Clintonian 90s.
Have faith everyone.
May 22, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur. My faith has never waivered.
May 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand what is going on here. If Senator Obama's campaign has won, if it's in the bag, what gives? Why don't they seat the delegations (including Michigan uncommitted for Obama, all of the uncommitted). If it's not going to affect the outcome of the race, then just do it I say. If it is going to possibly affect the race, then we should stop genuflecting to the almight math. Something ain't right here, and it ain't just Clinton the politician being political.
May 22, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton campaign OPPOSES giving the uncommitted delegates to Obama.
May 22, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking about what I would propose if I were Obama and I knew, because of the math, that I was going to win this thing.
May 22, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a reality-based world, Obama has the delegates, and soon will have the superdelegates, to clinch the nomination.
But that is not the world the Clintons now inhabit.
Technically, the nomination is up for grabs until either she concedes or she loses a roll-call vote in Denver.
If she's willing to sabotage the 2008 election, she can push this right to the convention floor.
Anything can happen between now and then, she'd argue.
Obama could get hit by a campaign bus, secret porno tapes could surface, war could erupt with Iran.
Anything could persuade delegates (already pledged, committed or super -- it doesn't matter) to change their minds, and back her.
So until Obama gets her concession -- in writing, and in triplicate -- he can't afford to be overly generous in seating Michigan and Florida.
Hillary would just see that as weakness, and further reason to push on to the convention.
Sorry to offend any of her remaining supporters, but she's just batshit crazy enough to do it.
May 22, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not offended, but your reply is not all connected to the query I posed. It's just the latest Clinton pyschoanalysis from afar and for that you are in good company! :)
May 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right - you know what isn't right? Lots of people's mistaken ideas about what a primary is, what happens and what it means.
That's not right.
This is not a democratic process, perse, It is not a governmental process. There were rules right from the start and if rules are going to have any meaning, then some consequence should flow from the deliberate and knowing decision to break the rules.
but hell, why should be let little things like rules and the rule of law matter anymore, yo? The Repugs have been tearing both apart since they got the majority, so let's just join in the fun and make American one big free-for-all!
May 22, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmmmm-hmmmmmmm. You tell it, Tena! I'm with you 100%.
May 22, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, sister.
May 22, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you have a strange notion of what constitutes a "flat-out assertion". The actual quotes from Wolfson you provide do not support the headline.
May 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You all are forgetting how the Clintonistas have gone into MI to put into place their people for the uncommitted delegates as well, which is within the rules, if you ignore that the whole MI thing broke the rules. Clinton knows she needs all the delegates from MI to have a chance at winning, and she has showed no signs of integrity yet (unless "me winning and anything that helps that" can be called integrity-- it does have a certain steadfast Machiavellian coherence, doesn't it?). Look for her people to pretend to cooperate as an entree to collecting the uncommitted delegates for themselves. With Blumenthal chumming up with "liberal media bias" Right, and Hillary's lovefest with Scaife, Limbaugh, Hannity, and any other right-winger that is playing her, why don't they just become Republicans like Lieberman already. Horowitz, etc. converted from Marxism to Neo-Conservatism, why not the other way around? The thing that never converts for any of them regardless of ideology du jour is their egos and their belief that they are gods over the "little people". Absurd if it weren't so pathetic.
May 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm being distracted from real life obligations because I'm constantly reminding myself of how much I have come to hate HRC and her self-serving shredding of any rule that stands in her way.
And to think that I once wished her well.....
/sigh
May 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't say it would be legit. And also we know it has nothing to do with maximizing participation because she doesn't want to count a single vote for Obama or Edwards in Michigan, and she doesn't want to count the voters of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. She is lying, this is all about trying to make it look like Obama stole the election from her, and her and Ferraro and the rest of them are working overtime to blame in on sexism:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/hillarys-gender-baiting-campaign-is-in.html
And for Ferraro's most recent paranoid bigotry:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/geraldine-ferraros-sexism-neo.html
May 22, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink