was Clinton fighting to seat delegates from MI and FLA back when she

[Lerkfish]

thought she was the inevitable nominee? Exactly at what point did she start fighting to seat them?

was it before or after Iowa?

[fenriswolf]

1. she started fighting them

when she realized she might need those delegates.

[Lerkfish]

3. that's what I'm trying to determine

I'm not positive, but I believe her fight only started when she lost a caucus. As long as she felt she the unstoppable juggernaut, she didn't care, or so it appears to me.

Knowing the exact moment of her concern about those voters would go a long way toward proving or disproving my impression.

[ursi]

2. she was part of this all along, otherwise, she would have removed her name from the ballots

like Edwards and Obama did.

[Lerkfish]

5. Part of what, exactly?

What was the intent of not removing her name? did she state an intent?

[Kucinich4America]

9. The DLC (Clintons) don't acknowledge the rules of the REAL Democratic party

Because they think they own the party.

[fenriswolf]

6. exactly

and how people think that awarding her the delegates from michigan is in anyways ok without a revote is rediculas. I've heard them clammoring about all the poor disenfranchised voters in michigan. Its rediculas, its transparent, its underhanded and its unfair as hell to the democratic process.

[DJ13]

4. I dont think Hillary understands she's playing into Obama's current message

The current message by the Obama campaign is that Hillary "will do anything, and will say anything to win".

She's proving them right by acting like this.

[PassingFair]

10. They think people are stupid.

They think we don't watch.

They think we don't have a choice.

(Usually they are right about that last one.....)

[george_maniakes]

7. actually im a bit confused by this too. Did she or did she not agree to abide by the partys decision

that florida would have 0 delegates? Someone have an answer?

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Her stance is not literally breaking any rules, that's the first thing

Ultimately the delegates to the National Democratic Convention who are accredited and seated by the rules the the DNC instituted become the final authority on what "challenged" delegations can and can not be seated also. The MI and FL delegates no doubt will show up at the National Convention and ask to be seated. The matter will be put to a vote of the other delegates, and with that vote the rules governing the convention in that instance will be determined.

What Hillary is doing here is state that she will urge (not command) her delegates at that time to support the seating of the delegates from MI and FL. She is not breaking any rules in so stating. She will of course be bound by the final positon arrived at by the Convention delegates through their formal and official vote on the matter.

Hillary is also a signer of the 4 State Pledge that bars candidates who sign it from campaign activity in Florida prior to the primary there. Obama and Edwards also signed that pledge. That pledge is with the 4 Early Contest State Chairs directly, not with the DNC. That pledge allows for candidates to conduct fund raising inside Florida in person, but not to campaign there and campaigning is defined to include advertising. Hillary remains in compliance of that pledge as does John Edwards. Barack Obama takes the position that he is in compliance with that pledge also even though he has campaign ads being broadcast inside Florida, because those ads are part of a national ad purchase that sends ads into all States. Neither Clinton or Edwards are doing the same.

[george_maniakes]

21. so she is urging her delgates to seat delegates from a primary she agreed not...

to participate in, is that correct?

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. As far as that goes, but it is from a primary she HAS NOT participated

No one alleges that Hillary Clinton has participated in either the Michigan or Florida Primaries. I think that distinction is a valid one to stress.

And I think her position is the sane one for the Party. The best deterrent to leap frogging State Primaries was the political and economic punishment of no campaign zones errected inside each of them. That had real negative consequences for both Florida and Michigan.

But by the time the summer roles around the last thing our actual nominee will need is a bunch of angry influential Democratic party activists and officials from two important swing states booted out of the National Convention on national TV in some degrading controversy that leaves them bitter right when the campaign tries to swing into gear.

[RoveRage]

18. I'd like to know as well, though I suspect I know what the answer will be.

[kdmorris]

8. First mention I can find of her caring about us

was on Friday (1/25), when it looked like she was going to lose South Carolina to Barack Obama.

If she said anything about it before that, the major news networks did not report on it, that I can find.

[PassingFair]

11. Our party "people" have been saying all along that our delegates

will be seated....

In a "now, now, don't worry your little heads" kind of way.

Now that her "juggernaut" has fizzled, maybe
the DNC IS playing hardball and this has
changed the game a bit......

Verrrrry interesting.

[skipos]

12. 1. Hell no. 2. When it became clear doing such a thing would help her own cause

3. After.

[iamjoy]

13. Well, Rumor Has It...

Hillary Clinton really didn't care too much about the situation. Supposedly, many of the powerful Democrats in Florida and Michigan who wanted the early primary and have been fighting the sanctions so hard are Clinton supporters. I guess they figured with the other candidates not campaigning, Hillary Clinton would easily win because of name recognition. Even if her victory didn't add to her delegate count, it would give her another publicity boost going into Super Tuesday, where she would clinch the nomination. She would then magnanimously invite the delegations from Florida and Michigan to be her guests at the convention. Their votes wouldn't actually matter, because she would have enough delegates without them.

Anyway, no one really gave a crap about the voters of Michigan and Florida. The ones who moved our primary in violation of the rules wanted the money the early states get from campaign activities and media coverage (it backfired on them). The DNC applied sanctions which hurt the voters. The Four State Pledge further insured there would be no economic benefit to the rogue states. But it also meant the voters would be ignored.

But anyway, those influential in the Florida Democratic Party have been saying for months that our eventual nominee will seat our delegation. So, it's not news to us that Hillary Clinton is "fighting to seat them."

[george_maniakes]

14. Did she publically agree though with the decision not to take part in the florida primary?

If shes not participating in the primary, how can she expect delegates? it makes no sense.

[iamjoy]

16. They Wouldn't Be Real Delegates

they wouldn't be delegates in the sense that they couldn't vote on the floor. BUT, if she secures the nomination before the convention, they would be the Florida Cheerleading section.

Anyway, she did sign the Four State Pledge, but that only said she wouldn't campaign here. She can still fundraise, and all the candidates names remain on the ballot, because some Florida law prohibited candidates from removing their name while they were still in the race. I don't know the exact statute, but I know that's at least part of the reason Obama, Edwards and others pulled out of the Michigan primary, but not Florida. Clinton stayed on in Michigan though, so I assume she would not have pulled out of the Florida primary, even if the law allowed it.

Hillary Clinton is trying to have it both ways, which should surprise no one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Dodd and Kucinich were on the Michigan ballot also

There was no requirement from the DNC or anyone else that candidates remove their names from that ballot. The DNC said they would not seat any delegates won there, but candidates were free to keep their name on the ballot. From the DNC perspective Michigans primary was turned into a "beauty contest" where MI voters could express their preferences without delegates actually being accredited. The 4 State pledge that Clinton and other candidates signed on to prohibited her from actively campaigning in Michigan, and she didn't.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I just answered in post #15 above...

No one involved in any candidate campaign or with the DNC or with any of the 4 early contest States that all of our remaining candidates made their pledge to that rules out participating in Florida's primary, has accused Hillary Clinton of participating in Florida's primary. All of our candidates are on Florida's ballot.

[george_maniakes]

20. there on the ballot but they are all agreed that they will receive no delgates.

is that correct?

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. I don't think that was an issue the candidates had to address

They could not campaign inside Michigan and still keep their pledge. Michigan could not move up its primary and still expect to have the delegates it selected through it accepted by the DNC. The candidates had no official say in who would or would not ultimately get to be delegates. That matter was between the DNC and the State Parties. And the final judge is the delegates assembled at the convention, not the candidates to whom delegates were or were not awarded.

[george_maniakes]

25. so clinton agreed not to participate in the florida primary, but she would like delegates from...

the florida primary, is that it? Was it her opinion that she would urge delegates at the convention to seat delegates from florida just before iowa and new hampshire?

[4themind]

24. A few questions...

Hi all, new poster here, I'd like to ask a few questions, about the pledge.
1.)Would someone provide a sourced wording of the "pledge"? (assuming it was worded)
2.)How were terms such as "participate" vs. "campaign" defined in this agreement if at all, and was an authority for these definitions stated in the pledge?
3.)Were the consequences for "breaking" the agreement also defined in the pledge itself, and if so what were they?

Thanks in advance for any sourced answers to these questions.