Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Conventi

[William769]

Press release.

"I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.


"I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

"I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

"I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5492

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. in other words, don't campaign, but let the winner get delegates

yeah, nice try.

[rinsd]

12. My take, if there is a clear nominee regardless of those states impact.

The nominee should then ask for those delegates to be seated.

If Obama is winning, it would be a very magnanimous gesture (I am assuming that he loses FL) and a show of unity going into the general.

If Clinton is winning, again it would be a unity thing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Even though technically Obama is the one now campaigning in Florida...

...according to the terms of the pledge he signed along with other candidates that said that he would not do so. It happens to be tactically shrewd, but Hillary has seized the higher moral ground here.

[Alexander]

79. That's a lie. He has never campaigned in Florida.

He bought national air time, just like all the other candidates - including your beloved Hillary - tried to do.

They're just jealous because he did it first - and successfully.

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. I am sorry but this is that rare instance where the truth can easily be determined

The first and only candidate to agree to a national ad purchase that resulted in a major penetration of the Florida media market is Obama, period. Days have passed and no other candidate has followed suit. Meanwhile Obama hasn't pulled those ads, they continue to be viewed in Florida.

It isn't easy to do an internet search that pulls up the specific sub text of the Four State Pledge that details how advertizing is considered campaigning. I saw it once but can't find it again. This is the closest I can find. I would welcome any other sourse anyone can locate, but there in no uncertainty that advertizing was included as a form of campaigning, and by attempting to "clear" a national media buy that included Florida in advance through the South Carolina Chair (while avoiding speaking to any of the other co-signers of the pledge) Obama conceded that advertising inside Florida was covered by the pledge:

Democrats' Pact To Boycott Florida Cracking
Related Links
By WILLIAM MARCH, The Tampa Tribune

Published: January 22, 2008

Updated: 01/22/2008 12:11 am


"...The Obama ad is running on CNN nationwide, including, the Clinton campaign said, in about 6.6 million Florida homes. Even though it's not aimed at Florida, that violates the pledge, Clinton's campaign contended.

In the ad, Obama's former law professor, Laurence Tribe, praises Obama and speaks of his commitment to change and his ability to unite Republicans and Democrats.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee cited the definition of "campaigning" in the pledge - which prohibits public campaigning, high profile appearances and advertising, allowing only fundraising visits - saying it makes no difference if the ad is running nationwide. He said Clinton has run only state-level ads, and Obama could have done the same."
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/22/na-democrats-pact-to-boycott-florida-cracking/

[jasmine621]

2. Bravo Hillary!

Has Obama pulled his ads in FL yet?

[Hippo_Tron]

8. There are no Florida ads, he is running national ads

It is physically impossible to exclude Florida when you are buying national ads. He got approval from the DNC and the South Carolina Party Chair before running the ads.

[rodeodance]

15. And they LANDED in FL. te he

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Seems like you're sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending not to listen

[rodeodance]

96. oh, i know what was said---I had the imagery of the ads floating around

up in the skywaves and landing in Fl--or wherever the cables 'land"

[leftynyc]

98. Meanwhile Clinton and Edwards

have managed to only run state advertising in order not to break that pledge. Only Obama is advertising in Florida. You can parse it all you want.

[MadBadger]

9. You talking about those ads that the SC dem party chair OK'd?

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Explain why the SC Dem Chair supposedly could "OK" them

Here is why I think that is a bogus ploy:

The agreement was between all four effected State Party Chairs and the Candidates.

There is no logic behind the assertion that since only the South Carolina vote still is pending that only the approval of the South Carolina State Democratic Party Chair was needed to nullify the terms of the pledge made by all the candidates. Consider this:

"On Thursday, Florida State Senator Ted Deutch sent a letter to the Democratic Party Chairs of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The letter asks the Chairs of the four early states to release the Democratic candidates from their pledge not to campaign in Florida before February 5th. Florida's primary is scheduled for January 29th, 3 days after the last of the four early primaries in South Carolina on the 26th. Senator Deutch's letter states:


On January 26th when the polls close in South Carolina, the goals you established in September when you asked the candidates to sign the Pledge will have been fully satisfied, and there will be no compelling reason for you to ask the candidates to continue to abide by the Pledge.

For five months, the candidates will have concentrated their attention on your four states. Allow Florida to have two days."

http://fl-kossacks.blogspot.com/2008/01/will-florida-no-campaign-pledge-lifted.html

Note that even this request for flexibility coming from a Florida State elected Democrat only calls for flexibility regarding the pledge AFTER South Carolina votes, not before then. And it is directed to ALL FOUR State Party Chairs, not just to the Chair of South Carolina.

There is a reason why it is a bogus argument that only South Carolina's position now is relevant because only South Carolina has not yet voted, and I mean a reason beyond the obvious one that the agreement on it's face does not drop State's from having a say in the pledge's terms once voters in that particular state have already voted. The point of the agreement in the first place was to make sure that States like Florida IN THE FUTURE do not attempt to arbitrarily move their primary dates up to usurp the traditional focus on the first states to caucus and vote, by forcing candidates to divert their energies to campaigning elsewhere as other larger states crowd the front end of the primary calender.

All parties to that agreement agreed on terms that they felt put sufficient teeth into the agreement to stop other states from doing what Florida did this year in the future. Those teeth were designed to include a severe disincentive for candidates to campaign inside of Florida until AFTER ALL FOUR early DNC sectioned contests were concluded. Those agreements furthermore were timed to expire AFTER the literal Florida vote, not before then; not even three days before then, which is why the letter from Florida Senator Deutch REQUESTED a voluntary release that would allow candidates to campaign inside Florida AFTER the South Carolina vote.

Senator Obama and the State Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party did not by themselves have standing to dissolve on their own an agreement arrived at by all the candidates and all four of the four effected State Chairs. It was an important agreement. If it wasn't it would have been broken long ago by all parties. There was no lack of clarity that the agreement was with all 4 state chairs, and there was no lack of clarity about why all 4 state chairs wanted that agreement in the first place. And there was no lack of clarity about what the terms of that agreement were. Given all of that common sense converges with a technical reading of the agreements wording to affirm that the pledge can't be terminated by seeking the advice and consent of one State Chair only.

[MadBadger]

69. SC is the only state left out of the last four, so if SC okays it...well then whats the issue?

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. The issue is Obama violated his pledge AND the reasons behind it

I repeat from above:

All parties to that agreement agreed on terms that THEY felt (not just South Carolina) put sufficient teeth into the agreement to stop other states from doing what Florida did this year in the future. Those teeth were designed to include a severe disincentive for candidates to campaign inside of Florida until AFTER ALL FOUR early DNC sanctioned contests were concluded. Those agreements furthermore were timed to expire AFTER the literal Florida vote, not before then; not even three days before then, which is why the letter from Florida Senator Deutch REQUESTED a voluntary release that would allow candidates to campaign inside Florida AFTER the South Carolina vote.

It wan't South Carolina's call to make. For all I know the SC Chair could support Obama for President and could be unduly influenced by that political consideration. The terms of the pledge were negotiated by multiple parties and they clearly were intended to extend beyond ALL of the four State's scheduled primary and caucus voting dates. That was the penelty believed to be severe enough to keep any candidate from breaking the pledge. Apparently Obama has recalculated his political interests and was willing to break his pledge using new math.

[William769]

10. Nope and they are not doing him any good!

:rofl:

[Rock_Garden]

3. She's right about this one.

[cali]

4. of course she supports seating them. She wouldn't if Michigan

hadn't gone to her and if FL weren't certain too. We know our HIll. Look up opportunistic in the dictionary and there she is.

[rodeodance]

13. The cure for sour grapes is lots of SUNSHINE

[ccpup]

17. and an 8 year rest

[cali]

27. I know exactly what the Clinton's think of Howard Dean and

how they've tried to undermine him and the 50 state strategy. You either care about that or you don't.

[rodeodance]

95. I care---but I have never agreed with the punishment melted out to MI and FL. And,

please stop making assumptions.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Mine! Mine! Mine!

Mine!

[rodeodance]

6. BRAVO BRAVO--GOOD FOR YOU HILL.

[Occam Bandage]

11. Yes, it's very noble of her to generously call for the seating of Clinton delegates.

[William769]

14. It's generous of her to be concerned about all the voters.

[Occam Bandage]

Once it's clear there's something in it for her, yes.

[William769]

19. So all the uncommited delegates for will wo to her also from Michigan?

[Occam Bandage]

33. Which are a minority of the vote. Still a net gain for her to do this.

Assuming that I read your question right; I have no idea what "for will wo to her also" meant, so I guessed.

[William769]

39. So then your original OP was wrong.

[Occam Bandage]

43. Not in the slightest.

She wants Clinton delegates to be seated. The insignificant number of other delegates are absorbed as a cost of doing business.

[rodeodance]

20. lots OF whinning FROM OBoma folks about Alledged voter suppression in NV--now

smarky comments when she is INfranching FLorida voters.

[William769]

23. Hit the nail right on the head!

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

28. Let's count the errors!

1. I've never breathed a word about voter suppression.
2. Lots.
2. of.
3. whining.
4. from.
5. Obama.
6. alleged.
7. snarky.
8. enfranchising.
9. It is hardly noble to push for enfranchisement of your supporters.

[rodeodance]

99. ?????

[rodeodance]

97. YOU MADE AN OPPSIE: as you forgot to say this action would seat Obama

and Edwards delegates also.

[Occam Bandage]

108. First, in far smaller numbers (so that doesn't actually change the point), and second,

it's spelled "oopsie."

[rodeodance]

118. ok--its "oopsie."

[rodeodance]

119. tsk tsk tsk, I can see why you are in a tizzy.

[cindyw]

7. Anything to get elected is looking pretty true at this point.

[BenDavid]

16. A smart move with the florida vote upcoming and you see why

this is the best political team in american politics...... DAMN GREAT MOVE!

[William769]

18. Obama gets out maneuvered once again.

[rodeodance]

26. ha ha--sure looks like it.

[Occam Bandage]

21. It was to be expected that the "winner" of FL/MI would call for those delegates to be seated.

Do you think the DNC wasn't expecting that to happen?

[geek tragedy]

22. Hillary to DNC and Howard Dean: Drop Dead.

Self-serving, and ignoring the party's greater good.

[William769]

24. Thats the message I want her to give them!

[cali]

31. disgusting. Howard Dean has done a magnificent job

at the DNC. The Clinton gang wants it back to it's top down, disenfranchising, sleazy McCauliff days.

[William769]

35. As a Florida Registered voter.

I'll take a BIG shit on Dean!

[Occam Bandage]

37. Save that shit for your greedy state leadership.

[William769]

40. I'm saving it for Dean!

He deserves all of it!

Hope he's got a second job, because this one is about to run it's course.

[Occam Bandage]

46. This is like blaming the cop when you get pulled over for going 110.

[cali]

How stupid and selfish

of people to blame it on Dean. FL dems fucking agreed to the schedule over 2 years ago, and then decided to break it. That's not Dean's fault. Figures that you're unable to grasp something even that basic.

[William769]

60. And you not voting for Hillary even in the general shows your unbiased opinion right?

[Occam Bandage]

78. Tu quoque! Tu quoque!

[leftynyc]

100. So ALL the Florida dems

voted on this and the majority decided to disenfranchise themselves? How about letting the Florida dem voters have a choice. Talk about basic.

[Occam Bandage]

109. Take that up with the Florida Democratic Party. They're the ones who voted to go ahead with it.

If it was against the will of the people, then they should be voted out of office.

[robbedvoter]

58. Of CANCELLING PEOPLE'S VOTES IN 2 STATES? GOP HAS DELEGATES FOR THOSE!

It's been a flawed primary - caucases with crazy rules, votes with no delegates - voters are hurt - but Dean is God?

[Occam Bandage]

62. He didn't cancel them. Those states cancelled themselves. They agreed to the primary schedule,

and then broke it. They were warned that if they continued to break the rules, they would have their delegates stripped. MI and FL then flipped the bird to the rest of the nation and went along. Now they're whining about having to pay the price they agreed to pay? Laughable.

[ieoeja]

91. At least you're honest in rooting for Clintons over Democrats. n/t

[jaysunb]

30. Bingo !

n/t

[Kucinich4America]

25. The DLC was responsible for fucking up Michigan & Florida.

So if Hillary loses delegates because of that, she has nobody to blame but her friends.

[wyldwolf]

32. how so?

[Occam Bandage]

36. No, MI and FL were responsible. They were told what would happen if they broke the rules,

and they did anyway.

[Kucinich4America]

64. And who was it in MI and Fl that were pushing for this?

Jennifer Granholm - DLC

Bill Nelson - DLC

The whole scam was to move up the primaries with the assumption that these states would vote for the DLC candidate (and we all know who she is) and give that candidate an advantage going into Stupendous Tuesday.

It backfired, they broke the rules, and got smacked down for it. Now that Hillary "won" a basically uncontested primary in Michigan, she wants to break the rules again and claim the delegates. That's complete bullshit.

But that's the DLC for you.

[Occam Bandage]

73. Exactly. nt

[ihelpu2see]

29. Please let me win, Please oh please.... This makes me sick. She is so very

shallow. The rules are the rules.... If you decide to break them you pay the consequence.

[Stephanie]

34. She has no ethics at all.

Win at any cost, so Rovian.

[robbedvoter]

52. EVEN AT THE COST OF HAVING PEOPLE'S VOTES COUNT? Horrible!

Of course party internal squabble are more important than THE RIGHT TO VOTE!!!! :eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

72. The FL dem party forfeited your right to vote. Take it up with them.

[Stephanie]

90. She's pulling a fast one. She's reneging on the agreement the candidates made.

It's unethical and slimy.

[rodeodance]

103. The candidates agreed NOT to campaign there--I do not think any of them

had anything to do with the creation of the rules.

[Blackhatjack]

38. CALLING HOWARD DEAN.... Time to take Hillary to task ....

What Hillary is doing is aiding and abetting clear violations of the Party Rules that all the states and the candidates are pledged to abide by.

They don't get to 'pick and choose' which rules they will abide by and which they will ignore. If they don't like the rules they should work within the Democratic Party to change them.

Hillary needs to be slapped down big time for this obvious attempt to promote the breaking of Party Rules which inures directly to her advantage.

I agree with other posters here --Hillary would not take this position if those delegates were not supporting her.

This is PLAINLY WRONG.

[William769]

42. Yes wanting to be the President of all 50 States " is PLAINLY WRONG".

:eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

55. Florida said "fuck you" to the entire Democratic party. They shouldn't get special treatment.

[William769]

61. The Legislature did not the people.

And it's a repuke controlled Legislature.

[Occam Bandage]

68. "Repuke-controlled?" They voted unanimously. Sorry your leadership blows,

but that's not everyone else's fault.

[robbedvoter]

48. yeah, cuz having your vote count is PLAINLY WRONG!

[jefferson_dem]

41. Hillary's Motto: "It's all about me!"

How about STFU?

[Stephanie]

Precisely.

[robbedvoter]

44. Voting rights matter. GOP-ers in those states get delegates. Why not dems?

What's wrong with the fucking DNC?

[William769]

49. look at who's upset over this and you have your answer.

[Occam Bandage]

51. Greedy Clinton supporters who think the rules shouldn't apply to them?

[William769]

53. Thanks for making my case!

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

56. Your state party agreed to the schedule. They then broke it, despite being warned

that they would be punishing their state's voters if they did so. Now they want to have their cake and eat it too.

[William769]

66. The State Legislature did.

[Occam Bandage]

70. Unanimously. And the State party was given the option to set its own date. It declined.

[Occam Bandage]

50. Because Florida moved up its state primary in clear violation of party rules, despite

being warned that doing so would strip it of its delegates. Florida gave the rest of the Democratic party the finger, and got slapped in return.

[bluedog]

47. Credentialing Committee

this was in our local paper....I don't know if MI knows this or not...seems the media doesn't know this fact.


question .........:Is it possible that Florida's delegates will ultimately be counted when Democrats hold their national convention, Aug. 25-28 in Denver?

Yes, it's possible. But the process is complicated. The person who wins the nomination can't simply decide unilaterally to recognize Florida's delegates. Technically, that decision will be made by the Credentialing Committee of the convention, and that group is made up of 186 members from each state. If Florida wants to send its delegates to the convention, it will have to petition that committee.


http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/19/State/QA__Parties__penaltie.shtml

[The Backlash Cometh]

54. Where were the Clintons in 2000 when the Florida voters wanted to be heard?

[Occam Bandage]

57. They only speak up for those people who vote for Clintons.

[William769]

63. Where Gore wanted them!

[The Backlash Cometh]

74. Oh, in other words, their appearance would have stoked up the wrong feelings

within the Republican party, much like today.

[William769]

77. Hey all I did was answer the question.

You don't like the answer, thats your problem.

[The Backlash Cometh]

85. I think the answer is spot on.

They will bring out the Republican vote, and not with the results that will favor Democrats. But Hillary doesn't care, because all she is thinking about is getting through the primary.

If it was true in 2000, it will be true in 2008, unless the media starts churning the news about all the corruption attributed to Republicans.

[goldcanyonaz]

59. Man, she's tough, and I LOVE it. We gots ourselves a fighter here.

On a side note:

Fuck you, Repugs!

It'll be a cold day in hell that she turns over any election to the other side. She'll take her last breath in order to have every vote counted and recounted.


:woohoo:

[CyberPieHole]

116. She is definitely TOUGH...and RELENTLESS...

I just love her tenacity and spirit...she is the strongest candidate we have running and she will win back the White House if she gets the nomination. I look forward to that happening.

She is correct in attempting to give the voters of Michigan and Florida a say in the election. If those states are disenfranchised they will definitely vote repug come the GE.

[hughee99]

67. Seriously, who didn't see this coming a mile away? n/t

[William769]

71. Man can I bring them out of the woodwork or what!

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

75. Congratulations on your skill at flamebait.

[William769]

80. And whats flame bait about this?

I added absolutely nothing to the OP but the statement itself.

You consider it flame bait for the simple fact you candidate got out maneuvered once again. :rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

81. Out-maneuvered? How, exactly?

I consider that kind of statement flamebait. Clinton asking that her ill-gotten delegates be seated is not exactly "out-maneuvering" anyone.

[William769]

82. if it's flame bait then alert the Mods and have it locked.

Good luck with that! :rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

83. You're well aware the rules are on holiday during the primary season.

[William769]

86. Then once again you said something that is "disingenuous".

Please note the place cards.

[Occam Bandage]

87. Nope. You're not very good at using words.

[William769]

89. Yes I am.

Busted! :rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

92. A brilliant comeback, sir; you'd certainly dominate the sandbox circuit.

[rodeodance]

104. green with envy.

[William769]

106. Some are green in the face, thats for sure!

:rofl:

[THUNDER HANDS]

76. face it, the Clinton's think they're above the party

[liskddksil]

88. Changing the rules during the game is blatent cheating

Didnt she learn that in elementary school.

[rodeodance]

101. She politely is asking them to Re-consider.

[totodeinhere]

102. She is saying that because she won in Michigan and expects to win in Florida.

I wonder if she would be so eager to see those delegates seated if it were the other way around and Obama had won those primaries.

[suston96]

107. So what? What has that to with disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters....

...in Michigan and Florida?

What was all that bullshit from Democrats that all votes must be counted?

The Democratic Party, the party of voting rights, has no shame!

[Occam Bandage]

110. That was the deliberate action of their state Democratic parties. If they want to break the rules,

then they get to take their lumps.

[suston96]

111. I don't care who caused it, rank and file Democrats are being denied voting rights.....

....and all Democratic candidates should be defending those rights and demanding that the Democratic party cancel the sanctions against the states.

[Occam Bandage]

112. Then tell the state parties to hold their primaries in accordance with the schedule they agreed to.

[suston96]

113. No! You never, never tell voters that their party is being punished by denying individual....

...party rank and file the right to vote for a nominee.

Fine the party financially but never, never by attacking individual voting rights.

This is NOT about the candidates. It's about the people. Think about it.

[Occam Bandage]

115. The party is the one that agreed to strip itself of delegates.

[suston96]

117. I said, screw the party leadership for depriving their rank and file members of their voting rights.

What a terrible image of the Democratic Party this disenfranchisement displays. Shame!

[ecstatic]

105. I agree that their votes should count, especially since so many of them

turned out to vote.

[CyberPieHole]

114. Kick and recommend for Hillary Clinton 44th President of the U.S. of A...n/t

[IndianaGreen]

120. An expected power play from the Clintons, but one that I am bound to support on principle

It has been a long assertion of mine that the DNC went too far when it decided to punish the voters in MI and FL for the "misdeeds" of their elected officials in moving up their primaries.

The DNC should have stripped the credentials of the super delegates, not strip the voters from the delegates they voted for.

As to the other two candidates, it serves them right for being so quick in kow-towing to the DNC's insane obsession of keeping IA and NH as first in the nation.

The Clintons got Nixon beat when it comes to underhanded tactics.

[PervezClinton]

121. Rhymes with Edict of Nantes.