The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Topic A

A Predictable Outcome?

By Garance Franke-Ruta
As reports trickle in of a likely deal at today's Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaw Committee hearing on the fates of votes cast in Michigan and Florida in violation of DNC primary rules, it's worth looking back to the first meeting of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling on March 12, 2005. Really.

There, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor and Rules and Bylaws Committee member Elaine Kamarck gave a presentation on the history and timing of the party's presidential primaries and caucuses -- a topic on which she wrote her doctoral dissertation -- and the narrative of the nominating process from 1976 to 2004.

Two exchanges from the question and answer session that followed her presentation seem particularly relevant, and have, in many ways, foreshadowed the events of this year. Critically, Sen. Carl Levin and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell, both of Michigan and now advocating that their state's delegation be seated, sat on the Commission, whose year-long study's very first presentation was followed by these exchanges:

Harold Ickes: Elaine, I have two questions. One is -- one of the complaints about Iowa and New Hampshire, in our party at least, is that is that they are just simply unrepresentative ... of our party.... Would you also consider ... moving a couple of states up close to Iowa and New Hampshire? ...

And point two is ... if you have any thoughts about the ability of the national party to enforce its will, either legally or politically.

Elaine Kamarck: I do think Iowa and New Hampshire, on strict demographic grounds, are unrepresentative. I mean, that is the fact. It's really difficult to find a black community, a Hispanic community in those states, although there are, but certainly not the way they are in New York or California. So you can't get around that.

The only way, I think, to, sort of, deal with that question would be to move a large state early, okay?

Because it is the large states that tend to have the demographics that we're looking for. And what happens is, if you move a large state early, what you're doing is -- if you were to move them, say, before Iowa and New Hampshire, you are sacrificing that retail campaigning. You know, all the small states where you could, in fact, get that kind of one-on-one campaigning, they're going to be unrepresentative in some way. So it's really a kind of big-state/small-state question.

Secondly, and I think we'll deal with this later, but it's certainly been my experience that the leverage of the national party over state primary decisions is incredibly small. Our ultimate leverage, buttressed by the Supreme Court and by the - covered the First Amendment, our ultimate leverage is simply to not seat delegations at our nominating convention. And, of course, when -- as you remember, when we were really fighting these rules fights in the 1972 convention and 1968 convention, there were delegations not seated. Okay?

But we have, actually, very little leverage. And I think when you're a small state like Iowa and New Hampshire, with a big tradition, being first, not only do your politicians not care about being seated at the convention, your voters don't care. I mean, your voters would rather have you -- have a first primary than have 20, 30 people go to a nominating convention....

Spencer Overton: You mentioned that we have little influence, in terms of the timing, with some of these primaries.... Do we have more influence over party-run primaries ... like Michigan, South Carolina, New Mexico?

And if we do, what's your thought of putting a more diverse place that might even be a retail place -- like a South Carolina, like a New Mexico caucus -- immediately after a New Hampshire or an Iowa, or maybe even a Michigan, soon after those other states?

Kamarck: I think we've actually done that in the past. We've given exemptions to put South Carolina early. I think South Carolina's gotten a lot of attention from the Democrats because of that. We did this last time. And then there was certainly a pretty good race. I'm looking at Don and Carol. I mean, it seems to me you had a pretty good primary race in South Carolina.

We don't really have, fundamentally, any more control over party primaries than we do over state-run primaries. And the reason is simply that our ultimate control is, in fact, seating the delegation. So if a state decides that they are more vested in their own system, and they'll worry about getting seated later, okay, there's not much the party can do about that, except kick them out of the convention.

And then I think the party would go through the following question: Is the bad publicity back home worth not seating them at the convention?

Okay, and, guess what?

We would seat them at the convention. I mean, unless maybe they're Wyoming or a state that is so wildly Republican that we don't care, and we don't think we could ever win it.

Posted at 1:57 PM ET on May 31, 2008  | Category:  Topic A
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Democrats Demonstrate, Argue Outside DNC Meetings | Next: Obama's Night Trip to Rushmore


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.




FL Decision

An amendment proposed in both houses of the FL state legislature to move the day of the FL primary to comply with the primary schedule was defeated by Republican dominated houses. The Democrats could not get the primary moved to an approved date. The Democratic voters are penalized. This makes no sense. An appeal to the Credentials Committee should be valid based on the fact that the Democrats tried to get the date changed and were outvoted by Republicans. How can a Republican decision be used to penalize Democratic voters? Oh wait - that has happened before in FL.

Osmond's petition and his explanation clearly showed that the super delegates should have full voting rights according to the DNC's rules. I would definitely appeal that to the Credentials Committee.

Florida's delegates should be seated with full voting rights. Voting rights are one of the fundamental rights of a member of a deliberative assembly.

Wexler - now there was a guy that did not want to answer the hard questions directly. I have news for the Rules Committee - your job is not to appease the candidates. It is to ensure the fair accounting and representation of the voters in each state.


MI Decision

Brewer's compromise solution was and still is a farce. Since when are exit polls and 'we going to make up our own rule about how to deal with write-ins' used to determine delegates?

Brewer's arguments do not hold any validity. If they were valid they would be valid if the MI primary was held on an acceptable date. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if the DNC went back to all of the primaries and applied Brewer-ism rules to the results? "I'm sorry - our exit polls show that your vote really went toward another candidate." A voter would slap the DNC across the face and say "The hell it did. I voted and that vote goes toward my candidate."

The only sensible solution to MI would be to give Clinton the delegates she won and place the other delegates as the 'uncommitted' type. The voters of MI do realize that some candidates removed their names only to make themselves 'look better' in the eyes of IA and NH voters. Voters know when politicians 'curry favor'.


DNC Rules Committee

I am greatly disappointed with most of what I saw on May 31, 2008.

The committee should have realized that Democratic unity would best be achieved by counting everyone's vote equally - not this middle of the road compromise. It would be better to give full voting power to delegates from FL and MI and then if one candidate wins or loses - no one can complain about it. No - instead the committee takes delegates from one candidate and gives them to another candidate. What a tainted victory that would be. It would be equivalent to giving pitchers 4 strikes per out when everyone else has 3 strikes per out.

By far and away, the most disappointing actions by the committee were the motions entertained. First off, you should have been proposing a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted. Secondly, the FL motions were essentially the same motion at the same meeting. This too is against RONR.

The most amateurish conduct by the chairs was when each of them 'called for abstentions'. Abstaining means not to vote. You do not vote 'abstention. When I saw that I thought your parliamentarian was an idiot. But at least he did make the chair call for no votes.

As far as the unruly crowd went, the chair can demand for the removal of non-members that are disturbing the meeting. This was not done. The non-members have no right to interfere with the conduct of business.


Posted by: voter with full rights | June 1, 2008 1:03 PM

Until Hillary is given the Presidency, the scream, blaming and attempts to cheat will not cease. Her supporters have become like Nazi Brownshirts, and I say that as a person of Jewish heritage steeped in the Holocaust.

It doesn't matter what the legitimate votes were and the caucuses you can just forget. Delegates don't matter. Only one thing matter, The Clinton Rules. Rule One(actually the only rule) is that the Clinton will win. Must win. It is their due. To not give them the presidency is to show disrespect for women, for democracy, and for Appalachian racists.

Posted by: sabatia | June 1, 2008 12:51 PM

"Denver! Denver!" is an ancient indigenous phrase meaning, "Obama is the nominee."

Posted by: Christi | June 1, 2008 9:07 AM

Obama.. the prince of "don't count the votes"

No wonder thinking people are leaving the democratic party.

Posted by: | May 31, 2008 4:25 PM

Right to go to the Republican party, who effected EXACTLY THE SAME SANCTION OF FL AND MI--HALF THEIR VOTES?

NICE TRY...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2008 2:05 AM

South Carolina and New Hampshire moved up their primaries and the DNC approved that and did not penalize them.
Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries and the DNC penalized them by not counting any delegates. They could have penalized them by counting half of their delegates like the Republicans did.

So -- Obama was favored to win in South Carolina and New Hampshire. Clinton was favored to win Florida and Michigan. Don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure this out. The DNC wants Obama to win the nomination and did their part to help him.

Posted by: Marshall | May 31, 2008 6:45 PM

Marshall, clearly you are not a brain surgeon--nor do you know anything about politics.

1) NH ALWAYS votes early--and Hillary won that state although you seem to think Obama did.

2) South Carolina was allowed to vote early to represent the South. This decision was made at a time Hillary was expected to win South Carolina and virtally all the other states.

This is because it was long before the primary season ever started and Barack Obama was just a long shot. Clinton staffers controlled the committees that voted and approved EVERYHING!

You also seem to be completely unaware that the RNC also penalized FL and MI half their delegates. Was that a Hillary conspiracy as well? Think not. GET A BRAIN AND LEARN SOMETHING!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2008 2:03 AM

The most predictable outcome of all the drama attending the primaries and the upcoming general election is that Obama will never win the presidency.

It's disgusting that the DNC realizes this and will probably still nominate him.

It's going to feel weird changing to Independent after almost 30 years as a registered Democrat. Weird, but also good in a way.

And even if there is no good candidate to vote for in November, I'll still go to the polls to cast my "anybody but Obama" vote. There will be a bitter satisfaction to it.

Posted by: Lynn | May 31, 2008 5:10 PM

OK RACIST GARBAGE. GOOD RIDDANCE

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2008 2:02 AM

Come on, the DNC just wants to come up with a way in which they pick the candidate ahead of time followed by a sham primary. 2008 is a test run,hopefully they should have all the kinks out by 2012.

Posted by: 1ahead | May 31, 2008 4:15 PM

You could vote all of those delegates for Hillary--and she still wouldn't win. You can call it a sham because you didn't get the result you wanted, but that hardly makes it one.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2008 1:53 AM

Why does the DNC have to get Obama's permission? It burns me up. He wants to appear gracious but only because it makes him appear the bigger person.

Posted by: iammonique54 | May 31, 2008 7:44 PM

Barack is being the bigger and more gracious person in this situation--and it's not even close.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2008 1:52 AM

Yes.

Posted by: Tight | June 1, 2008 1:21 AM

I was a long time Hillary Clinton supporter, however, I am determined to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

My disappointment is that I do not think that Hillary Clinton will work to help elect a Democrat in 2008. And because of her attitude, her supporters are following suit. What they seem to not realize is that Hillary Clinton will bear lots of blame if the Democrats fail in November.

And whether women like it or not, most people admire the work and accomplishments of Hillary Clinton, however, they were not drawn to her for other reasons. Many a candidate with exceptional credentials have not won the nomination or Presidency...there is more to it than just having credentials and some people just have that 'something' that voters are drawn to (e.g. Ronald Reagan).

Hillary Clinton and her supporters should consider that there will be a significant consequence when they derail this election for Barack Obama and the Democratic party in hopes that Hillary Clinton can run again in 2012.

If they do derail this and vote for McCain, Hillary Clinton will NEVER become the Presendential nominee for the Democratic party. The 2nd consequence is that the country will remember this and it will be a long long time before the majority of voters want to experience the divisiveness that lingers. That will translate into not wanting a woman to run anytime soon for fear she will play to gender, whine, blame and play the victim.

Posted by: Time to move on | June 1, 2008 12:20 AM


Hey all!

I am looking for Hillary supporters. If you're in Hils camp, would you pop by here when you get a sec?

http://livefrankly.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/an-honest-question-to-clinton-supporters/

Thanks in advance!

Posted by: MsJoanne | June 1, 2008 12:11 AM

This Florida and Michagen situation need to come to end soon McCain is gathering momentum in the other States which can cause The Democats the election which is in favor at this season Hurry quickly before it is too late. Will the real nominee stand up

Posted by: pam Haynes | May 31, 2008 7:57 PM

Why does the DNC have to get Obama's permission? It burns me up. He wants to appear gracious but only because it makes him appear the bigger person. Bull.

Posted by: iammonique54 | May 31, 2008 7:44 PM

Sorry folks, it's "that time" of the month for me. Please bear with my incessant b!tching

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 31, 2008 7:28 PM

Hillary is TOAST and it has been thus for many contests by the way. Barack Obama has won 33 contests to her 18. She has every right to sty in until the contests are all done which is Tuesday. She will then have a decision to make be gracious and be on point with those trying to unite the party or go down in history as a divisive force that made it more difficult to win in November.

Barack Obama can still beat John McCain but yes it would be nice to have her supporters wipe their tears and then go to work to turn our country away from the George W. Bush years that have cost us mightily. We need to get out of Iraq, we need to fix our broken economy, we need to do better by our veterans and pass Jim Webbs GI Bill, We need to insure that John Mc War does not pick the next supreme court justices and overturn Roe Vs Wade. I left The Roe vs Wade argument for lat because the female supporters of Clinton may want to protect their rights to their wombs more than protect their candidate Hillary.

Got it gals time to unite our team and put our country back on the right course.

YES WE CAN DO IT TOGETHER DEMOCRATS.

Posted by: Joe Bento COL US ARMY RET | May 31, 2008 7:18 PM

I am SO tired of everyone fretting over Hillary's 'feelings' - although I wonder if she has any.

This is a presidential contest, and someone has to lose. That's the sad, cold reality of a contest.

SHE HAS LOST, and now it is time for her to take her ball and go home.

This Clinton farce is wasting valuable time to elect a Democratic president and increase our margins in the Congress and the states.

Move along already. Go through your own personal five stages of death if you need to, but move along. We have things to do, and one of them does not include fretting over 'poor Hillary.'

Posted by: Captain John | May 31, 2008 7:12 PM

wenchtoo says:

"if Florida and michigan are denied then all states that moved their dates up should also be denied! Other wise let all votes and delegettes count!
BTW i'm an independent!"

@wenchtoo:

Yeah right wenchtoo, build the straw man and beat him like a pinata!

"Nothing more completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity, than straightforward and simple integrity in another." --Charles Caleb Colton

Posted by: knowledge_unchallenged | May 31, 2008 7:09 PM

Hildebeast is toast.

The DNC is taking the Florida and Michigan excuses off the table.

The country will be spared the disaster of Clinton scum oozing back into the White House.

Posted by: Chuckamok | May 31, 2008 7:04 PM

Two very big problems with Hillary's arguments that she is winning the popular vote.

1) The democratic nomination process is NOT based on the popular vote. It has been based on state delegates for decades. If you want to change this rule you needed to do that before the nomination process started not at the end when you realized you were losing.

It is like saying after you lost a football game by 21-17 that you decide arbitrarily to say that a touchdown no longer counts for 6 points but rather 4 points. How does anyone actually think that would be fair??

2) Second point is if you even had an argument for the popular vote case you are not counting all the votes in the caucus states as they don't record popular vote. So now you are disenfranchising all the caucus states. But apparently Hillary doesn't care about them because that would not help her losing case.

Posted by: E Nelson | May 31, 2008 6:55 PM

Personally, I'm exhausted watching this chaotic circus going on. I'm having difficulty comprehending that the DNC Rules Committee doesn't understand that by giving Hillary what she is asking for or allowing her to throw it to the Convention and basically throwing the election to McCain, that no one will ever take the Democratic Party seriously again. We live in Montana, but already many of us are choosing not to vote for Max Baucus (we did not vote for him on our mail in ballot) because the Democratic Party is already seeming like a joke and Baucus couldn't do the "right" thing to end this drawn out ordeal called a Democratic Primary that is really Hillary Clinton throwing a political temper tantrum. If this circus continues to the Convention, we certainly won't vote for Baucus then. We are shocked that Hillary is trying to make it look sane that Florida and Michigan should be counted as if they were real elections despite being disqualified for moving up their primaries. We lived in Michigan this past summer and we certainly wouldn't have bothered to vote in the primary if we had been told it wouldn't count - we have trouble making time for the things that absolutely have to get done in any given day. After everything we have been through with Bush and the 2000 and 2004 elections, I could swear Hillary is pulling a George Bush - "here's how I want the election to turn out, so I'll just manipulate everything to get that result." Saddam Hussein had elections where he won 100% of the vote using this same method.

Posted by: Steffi Hartley | May 31, 2008 6:52 PM

Clinton is just another Bush. Don't like the rules, change them so that they favor you. Never admit you are wrong. Drag the event along as long as possible, hoping for some miracle to happen.

Enough of this. She lost. Very sad, but the truth.

Posted by: jht | May 31, 2008 6:51 PM

bob....typical male pig.

Posted by: jane | May 31, 2008 6:46 PM

Posted by: wenchtoo | May 31, 2008 6:19 PM I don't understand the following comment:
if Florida and michigan are denied then all states that moved their dates up should also be denied! Other wise let all votes and delegettes count!
BTW i'm an independent!
================================
South Carolina and New Hampshire moved up their primaries and the DNC approved that and did not penalize them.
Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries and the DNC penalized them by not counting any delegates. They could have penalized them by counting half of their delegates like the Republicans did.

So -- Obama was favored to win in South Carolina and New Hampshire. Clinton was favored to win Florida and Michigan. Don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure this out. The DNC wants Obama to win the nomination and did their part to help him.

Posted by: Marshall | May 31, 2008 6:45 PM

As I was out walking this morning for pleasure,
I spied a campaigner a-riding along.
Her hat was thrown back and her spurs were a-jingling,
And as she approached she was singin' this song:

"Whoopee tie yie yo! Git along, little Clintons,
For you know that the White House won't be your new home...
Whoopee tie yie yo! Git along, little Clintons -
It's your misfortune and none of my own.

"Some people go out campaignin' for pleasure -
But that's where they've got it most awfully wrong;
You could never imagine the trouble they give us,
As we go a-driving those Clintons along.

"Whoopee tie yie yo! Git along, little Clintons,
For you know that the White House won't be your new home...
Whoopee tie yie yo! Git along, little Clintons -
It's your misfortune and none of my own."

Posted by: Biographer | May 31, 2008 6:36 PM

Wow. Harold Ickes was full well aware of what would happen. The plan from the getgo was to pretend the delegates wouldn't be seated, so they could get two large states on name recognition alone, no campaigning that would hurt Clinton. Blecch. I'm nauseated.

Posted by: sickofspam | May 31, 2008 6:26 PM

if Florida and michigan are denied then all states that moved their dates up should also be denied! Other wise let all votes and delegettes count!
BTW i'm an independent!

Posted by: wenchtoo | May 31, 2008 6:19 PM

Well even though some people can't bear it (take your medication, but do not drive) the next American President is Barak Obama.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 31, 2008 6:09 PM

There is no logic for Hillary supporters: She has divided the party and this country only for the sake of her political interest.

This issue is not about voting right or women's rights. This is about rules set by the DNC as well as the agreement she made with other candidates prior to the two primaries.

Now we clearly see the fundamental motive of Hillary Clinton, and we know clearly know that she is not qualified to lead this country.

America deserves a leader who abides by rules and honors agreements. Will she change the Law if it does not serve her interest?

This DNC meeting is a joke, which I've never seen this kind of chaos even in any dictators' regimes in the Third World. The drama also represents Hillary's privilege as being a woman and "the Mrs. Clinton."

If any male candidate ever thinks (or even tries) that he could challenge the DNC rules or breaches the Gentlemen's Agreement agreed, his political career is over--from the very moment.

Obama's Campaign tries to compromise with Hillary's to unite the party, but I do not think that Hillary deserves such concession. She breached the Agreement, stirred pseudo-feminism, and blamed her mismanagement of her campaign to sexism and the media bias.

PS. I am an independent white woman.

Posted by: peace4world | May 31, 2008 6:07 PM

Hey. Why didn't Hillary demand that these delagates be seated months ago when she agreed not to count them? Could it be she didn't realize then that she would need them now. What a hypocritical lieing panderer (not the word I would really liked to use).

Posted by: rokkyrich | May 31, 2008 6:06 PM

"It was all about the will of the people and the voter has spoken until Clinton got more popular votes. Now it's all about Rules Rules Rules."

Wrong. It was, is, and always has been about the delegate count.

Posted by: tom | May 31, 2008 5:50 PM

Dear Hillary and Bill,

Its over. Go spend some of your millions and go away...PLEASE GO AWAY.

Posted by: Nu Yorker | May 31, 2008 5:49 PM

It was all about the will of the people and the voter has spoken until Clinton got more popular votes. Now it's all about Rules Rules Rules.

Obama's the rhetorical candidate, that's for sure. With a slippery, evolving, self-serving basket of rhetoric from which to pick and choose depending on where you are relative to your opponent.

>>"Prior to Oct, 11 2007, all Democratic canidates pledged to uphold the rules of the Democratic party."

The candidates agreed to not campaign in the states that were disciplined. Everyone always expected them to have to fight to get their delegates seated. (See above Q&A). The only thing that may have changed is Clinton is actively supporting the fight to seat the MI, FL delegates because she needs them.

There's nothing about breaking rules in what the Clinton campaign is about.

Obama supporters are programmed with the self-serving rhetoric of the day. They're like dogs that can speak and roll over on command, according to the campaign talking points du jour. And as we all have seen, that description applies to the media tools who shill and dish for Obama.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 31, 2008 5:42 PM

After watching today, I wasn't sure how I felt about counting Florida and Michigan. I now believe that their votes should be counted and the delegates fully reinstated. One issue that hasn't been discussed is how this race would be so different if those two elections had not been punished by the DNC. I believe that Hillary would have soared ahead and would now be our nominee. This is what saddens and frustrates many of us.

Posted by: Monique from NC | May 31, 2008 5:34 PM

I don't understand the following comment:

------------
if Florida and michigan are denied then all states that moved their dates up should also be denied! Other wise let all votes and delegettes count!
BTW i'm an independent!

Posted by: wenchtoo | May 31, 2008 6:19 PM
------------

There are NO OTHER STATES that broke the rules by moving their dates up beyond the permitted start date. The DNC chose four states for an early voting period -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Those four states went during that time because every one had agreed to it.

The thinking behind that decision was that South Carolina and Nevada would add racial and regional diversity to the early phase, without sacrificing the "retail campaigning" that occurs in Iowa and New Hampshire, since they are also relatively small states. Sounds smart to me.

But in any case, it was this decision that all agreed to. Only Florida and Michigan then refused to obey the rules by going early.

If this is confusing, the washingtonpost.com has an excellent graphic right now showing the step by step timeline in brief.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | May 31, 2008 5:31 PM

HIllary should learn to abide by rules and regulations of the party at all times, not only when it suits her personal ambitions. America, being the leader of the democratic world,deserves a leader who respects the rule of law and honors agreements, not self-seeking leaders. Why would she want to divide(destroy?)the party if she doesn't win the nomination? Somebody should tell her 'there is dignity in resignation'!

Posted by: Mike Odeh | May 31, 2008 5:26 PM

The most predictable outcome of all the drama attending the primaries and the upcoming general election is that Obama will never win the presidency.

It's disgusting that the DNC realizes this and will probably still nominate him.

It's going to feel weird changing to Independent after almost 30 years as a registered Democrat. Weird, but also good in a way.

And even if there is no good candidate to vote for in November, I'll still go to the polls to cast my "anybody but Obama" vote. There will be a bitter satisfaction to it.

Posted by: Lynn | May 31, 2008 5:10 PM

This is all about delegates, not popular votes. The caucus states had thousands of people show up, but they're not counted toward the popular vote. However, their delegates DO count. Only the delegate count matters. And you can't seat Mich. and Fla. according to their primaries' outcomes. The DNC received thousands of calls from people who WOULD have voted if they thought their votes would count. Let's face it. Whoever heard of changing rules in the middle of the game, which is exactly what the Clintons want. I would be sympathetic if they hadn't signed off on the rules, but they did. Their signatures are on record. They just have to get over it and go back to whatever state Hillary is now saying her family is from, probably Puerto Rico today.

Posted by: CRinVegas | May 31, 2008 5:06 PM

I'm a mean bitter woman, everyone feel sorry for me cry cry cry

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 31, 2008 5:03 PM

Rules are Rules. Prior to Oct, 11 2007, all Democratic canidates pledged to uphold the rules of the Democratic party. Let's not forget who won Michigan and Florida in the last two presidential elections. I bet the republican machine is behind this issue. This only hurts our party and will not help Clinton. I support the Clintons and I love their political savvy, but it is time to unite the party. Sen. Clinton you are ruining you chances for 2012.

Posted by: DLH | May 31, 2008 4:51 PM

Although Hillary Clinton is now in full-blown damage-control mode, the obvious literal interpretation of what she said is "Hey, if I just hang in there a little bit longer, some bigoted dork will put a bullet through Obama and I'll have a clear path to the Democratic nomination and to the Presidency."

Maybe she misspoke -- although she misspoke similarly at least once before. Or maybe it was a Freudian slip? Barack Obama, charitable as usual, attributed her remark to campaign fatigue, and no doubt that was part of the explanation for it.

Can we really get to sing "Ding, dong, the witch is dead" within the foreseeable future, when Clinton finally-finally quits the race?

Posted by: oldhonky | May 31, 2008 4:45 PM


i wish hillary wasn't such a crybaby and a sore loser.

they agreed to the rules months ago.

you can't change the rules if you don't like the outcome.

this is making tghe democrats look as bad as the republicans in 2000.

it sure doesn't make me feel proud.

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | May 31, 2008 4:39 PM

Obama.. the prince of "don't count the votes"

No wonder thinking people are leaving the democratic party.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 4:25 PM

Come on, the DNC just wants to come up with a way in which they pick the candidate ahead of time followed by a sham primary. 2008 is a test run,hopefully they should have all the kinks out by 2012.

Posted by: 1ahead | May 31, 2008 4:15 PM

What a waste of time, effort, and money (Obama is the inevitable nominee) just to appease Hillary! She is an attention addict; feverishly fighting to get just one more fix!

All-or-nothing Hillary supporters claim they will defect and vote for McCain (or not vote at all) because Hillary is an also-ran!

Is Hillary a loyal Democrat or the head of a cult?

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

http://klintons.com

Posted by: Bob | May 31, 2008 4:11 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company