Switching horses in midstream

Florida and Michigan voters still have a chance to be counted at the Democratic Convention in August. Both states have until June to submit plans to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for party-run contests, that comply with party rules.

But Hillary Clinton's stated position on the matter is disingenuous at best. In a conference call late last week, her aide Harold Ickes said voters in Florida and Michigan should not be "disenfranchised" and that the states were important to the Democratic Party's fortunes. Ickes said Clinton didn't vote on the DNC rules. But as a sitting member of the Rules and Bylaws Commission, Ickes did. In August he voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates.

Both states violated party rules by moving their primary dates prior to February 5. Presidential candidates - including Clinton - signed a pledge agreeing not to campaign in those states. "Those were the rules and we thought we had an obligation to enforce them," Ickes said. So why does the Clinton campaign suddenly think otherwise?

In the same conference call, Ickes told reporters that Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated at the convention and have full voting rights. He said delegates should be allocated "based on voting that took place in those states" - never mind that in Michigan, Sen. Barack Obama’s name did not appear on the ballot. "Uncommitted" received 41 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 55 percent.

If the Clinton campaign is so concerned about delegates from Florida and Michigan, why don't they urge Democratic leadership in those states to conduct DNC-sanctioned primaries or caucuses? Otherwise, Clinton and her aides need to drop their petulant rebellion against rules to which all candidates - as well as the party leadership in Florida and Michigan - previously agreed.

Comments

[Alexandra]

I just heard this exact topic being discussed this morning on the political morning Sunday talk shows. I think that Florida and Michigan had no business moving their dates up and its a shame they did because they disenfranchised their own voters. I feel bad for Clinton since those are a lot of delegates but she did agree beforehand not to have them counted. I think her and Obama would both be good candidates. It's going to be an interesting year ahead! It makes me want to get cable just to watch all the political debates and wrangling!

[Judy in KY]

I would like to second the statements by Robin, above. It sounds like Clinton is out to win, no matter what. It makes me very angry to think that a candidate would maneuver the rules in his or her favor, regardless of the will of the people. I also hope more viewers become aware of this situation and see through the "win at all costs" mentality.

[My Melange]

My opinion. Florida and Michigan knew full well what the consequences of their action were...moving up the Primaries and breaking the rules. They would be stripped of the delegates and the candidates were not allowed to campaign there. For Clinton to call herself the *winner* in those Primaries is laughable, since there was no contest. Barack is not as well known. Now she tries to change the tune. I bet Clinton could care less about these votes/delegates if she was winning. You wouldn't even hear a peep out of her. Just like now she cares about Wisconsin? Please. Between the new negative ads, which states she thinks count vs. don't count and the Florida/Michigan delegates...I hope the American people see through all this. She is just out to win...no matter what it takes. Same ole dirty politics and tricks. She needs to have some class.

I will be upset if the DNC turns this around and gives her these votes/delgates. You can't change the rules, after the game has already been played!!!

Tara...look...you got me all fired up on a Sunday!!!

xoxo
Robin

[jzr]

You Betcha!!!

[rochambeau]

Dear Tara,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't read or heard about this.

xox