Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and those pesky MI and FL delegates

With the Democratic presidential nomination fight looking more and more like a draw, party leaders are becoming increasingly concerned about internal fallout should neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama seal the deal the old-fashioned way -- by earning enough delegates for a first-round win at the Democratic National Convention.

As our colleague Peter Nicholas reports in today's paper, the Clinton campaign is still pushing the national party to count delegates from the Michigan and Florida primaries, which she won. You'll recall that those states were stripped of their delegates because the state parties jumped the line and held unsanctioned early contests. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, made a pitch earlier in the week for both national parties to seat all the delegates from the two states (the Republicans stripped half the delegates from the gun-jumpers).

A couple of points: First, courts have been loath to interfere with internal political party spats, arguing, essentially, that it's up to the parties to create the rules and sort out the messes themselves. But one suspects that if the Democratic National Committee changes its mind and seats the delegates -- even with the acquiescence of the Obama campaign -- while the nomination hangs in the balance, there would be a legal challenge by Obama supporters arguing that the party had violated its own rules after the fact. This is especially significant in Michigan, where Obama removed himself ...

from the ballot because of the sanctions, which meant people there couldn't have voted for him if they wanted to. And that's the kind of challenge the courts might take up.

Second, why is Crist so hot to have the delegates seated? His candidate, John McCain, sealed the Republican nomination the night before Granholm and Crist made their pitches. Yes, it would be good for GOP unity to have everyone seated, and as the party's standard-bearer in Florida, Crist certainly has a responsibility to make that case. At this point, the Republican Party loses nothing by letting all the Floridians in, though we're reminded of the necessity of firm and consistent discipline to handle an unruly child.

But the delegates are more important to the Democratic race right now. And with many Republicans preferring that McCain face off against Clinton instead of Obama, Crist's stance sounds like political game playing, similar to that of the Ohio Republicans who voted for Clinton on Tuesday. And it should be noted that Granholm's intent might not be pure, either -- she's a superdelegate who endorsed Clinton last fall.

-- Scott Martelle

Comments

[JS]

If Obama wins without MI and FL being counted, he will be illegitimate and I will do everything I can to see him lose in Nov.

Plus, the dems need to get rid of the caucus system. TX shows us how completely undemocratic it is.

[Mike]

If Clinton wins because Michigan and Florida are counted, she will be illegitimate, and I will do everything to see she loses in November.

And then Obama returns in 2012 to defeat the ancient John McCain or his vice president.

[JWeidner]

JS, your post is a twofer. Two of the most inane things I've read lately.

1. How is Obama responsible for what the Democratic National Comittee decided? He can't be an illegitimate candidate if he has played by the rules established by the DNC (which, by the way, were voted on and agreed to by the entire committee, which included, at the time, current Clinton staffer Harold Ickes - convenient that now he wants those delegates to count...)

2. If you're supporting Clinton, but would switch your vote to Republican (or, as you stated, do everything you can to see Obama lose) just because she didn't get the nomination, you must not hold very valued opinions about the state of the nation or the presidency. Pull your head out! This election is about more than whether Clinton or Obama gets the nomination. This is a chance to begin to reverse the damage done by the Republican party during the last 8 years. McCain isn't going to do that. Only Clinton or Obama, whichever of them wins the nomination, is going to be able to start working on repairing our nation.

Frankly, as an Obama supporter myself, I obviously hope he wins the nomination. But if he doesn't, I'm not going to act like a 5 year-old. I'll walk into that voting booth in November and select Clinton. This isn't a time to "take your ball and go home" like a child.

[Lisa Pease]

How can you say she "won" Michigan when no other candidate was on the ballot? The most you can say is she won a noncontest. To leave it out there as a 'win' says to people who don't follow the news "wait - she won that?" NO. She didn't.

Please don't keep calling her a winner there. Ditto Florida, where no one competed.

Ditto, for that matter, Texas. We don't award wins by popular vote. If we did, Al Gore would have been president in 2000. In the primary, you have to win the delegates.

And in Texas, now that the caucus results are 49% in, Obama's lead there is so big it's wiped out her primary victory. The delegates from TX come 2/3 from primary and 1/3 from caucus.

Hillary's votes: 65 primary plus 29 caucus = 94.
Obama's votes: 61 primary plus 38 caucus = 99.

So OBAMA is WINNING TEXAS by 5 delegates, and Hillary LOST Texas in the only count that matters.

I wish the media could get it right on these matters.

(Actually, Kucinich was on the ballot in Michigan, where most of the Democrats asked to have their name removed. Clinton did not. In Florida, the other candidates were listed, but did not actively campaign. They were allowed to fundraise in the state, however, which Clinton did and attracted pre-election publicity that way.)

[James M.]

Just like football or any sport for that matter, you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. Both Florida and Michigan knew the rules and the consequences for breaking them a full year and a half before their primaries. Anyone with a brain fully understands that the only reason why this has become an issue is because Hillary is desperate and will do anything to win. The fact of the matter is, the math is not on her side. Plus, the Governor of Michigan is a super delegate for Hillary and the Governor of Florida would like to see Hillary win because she is an easier candidate to beat against John McCain. Every poll indicates that Obama has the better chance of beating McCain than Clinton. The only fair resolutions is to abide by the rules as they were set or to have another election.

[Teri B.]

Don't you think Democrats might NEED Florida voters in November, and Michigan voters? Ever heard of voter suppression?

These democrats came out in record numbers to VOTE. This is despicable! COUNT THEIR VOTES. In Florida, neither candidate campaigned, and both were on the ballot. They had an even shot. COUNT THOSE VOTES FOR PETE'S SAKE.

In Michigan, re-vote or seat those delegations at the ratio of the national popular vote, but COUNT THOSE VOTES!

No one cares what their stupid state parties did to break the rules. The voters VOTED. Either pay for new elections, not those crooked, absurd, undemocratic caucuses, or COUNT THEIR VOTES!

If DEMOCRATS don't understand the value and importance of counting votes IN FLORIDA, then we are truly lost.

What the heck is wrong with these idiots?

[TJFRMLA]

HILLARY CLINTON has lied and cheated all thru this campaign. This woman has NO integrity or honour. She will do anything including STEAL this election if she is allowed to. She is the worse kind of politician. I want my daughter to see a woman President someday, but NEVER this caniveing witch.

[Steve Wimer]

How come you can say Hillary won with no other candidates on the ballot? It's called default! Some people ask dumb questions.

[Steve Wimer]

What lies? What cheating? Be specific. Prove your points. By the way, where did you learn to spell? It seems Clinton's critics don't know how to argue a point or spell.

[Kalli]

I don't get it. In Michigan, Clinton did not campaign but got her name on the ballot. The only name because everyone else decided to pull their names out of the game. I see this as a good tactician, remain visible and remind people she is running for president. Cover all bases. Is that what we want out of our leader, make sure everything remains to our advantage when dealing with foreign leaders and republican leadership?. She won without campaign. So she did not break the rule. In Florida, everyone decided to do the same, put their names in the ballot, including Obama. And guess what CLINTON won without campaigning. If you follow this campaign closely, Obama did visit Florida before the election, fundraising and or campaign. Clinton did not. Clinton won and only after she won that she had celebratory visit. To me this show foresight, ability to pan out all potential problems before going on the battle. And she picked her battles. She is certainly not a follower in my eyes. She lost 11 straight contests because she did not really campaign in caucus states due to, again she foresee the problems. Obama is following the Dean's strategy: all 50 states. If you see it closely, Obama won independents, and by nature independents are fence sitter, they can go to republican nominee at any given moment. Overall, I think Clinton is smart, forceful, determined, and has the ability to smell problems ahead of time and knows how to handle them. GO HILLARY!

[TC Bishop]

When you've lost 12 in a row, any good news qualifies as a comeback. The reality is, though, Clinton promised to cut Obama's delegate lead, and that didn't happen. The Clinton campaign set a test for themselves, which was to wipe out Obama's lead in delegates in the Ohio and Texas primaries. They didn't reduce Obama's lead at all. So now the Clinton campaign wants to change the nominating rules.

And Hillary has to create hocus pocus out of this. I can’t believe the LA Times buys into the"no leader" spin in this article on its front page today. It's hocus pocus to be sure, but Clinton's media team relies upon their ability to divert attention away from the actual facts. And these facts remain: Obama has won 28 contests, Clinton has won 13; Obama has won more popular votes; Obama has got somewhere in the neighborhood of a 160-delegate lead; and time is running out. At some point, the party is going to coalesce around the nominee, and the nominee should be Barack Obama.

Now Clinton wants to change the rules. Hillary has shown she's ready to destroy the party over her unprincipled ambition, and it should now be obvious to everyone that Clinton is prepared to use any and all manner of misinformation and manipulation to win. Clinton talks about vetting Obama, but what about Mrs. Clinton? Hillary Clinton and the voters need to be reminded why people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If Hillary insists on taking credit for the supposed accomplishments of her husband's administration, then she can also take responsibility for its many failures.

Voters should take a good look to see what is now beyond disguise: It is Clinton, not Obama, who is all talk and no action. The big ideas fueling Clinton’s candidacy are blind ambition, an unbecoming sense of entitlement and a thirst for power that all the Gatorade in Gainesville could not quench.

And it is time for each and all of us to be over and done with politics served Clinton style.

[Carrie]

Both Michigan and Florida knew the rules gonig into the game and now they want to change them? Shame, shame! I personally think ALL primaries should be held on one day. Oh, yes... I hear the complaints now. It's too costly! The candidates would spread themselves too thin! But wouldn't that be the most democratic way to do it? Give everyone's vote equality in the primary.

People are intrigued because, for the first time that I can remember, the nominee hasn't been chosen by the third or fourth primary and people actually have the opportunity to have a voice.

I don't recommend at all that this continue to drag on with Democrat pitted against Democrat and McCain working himself into a lather. I don't think that the delegates should be seated based on election that was held outside of the rules.

My big question... since when has a Florida Republican cared whether or not a Florida Democrat's vote counted? Interesting perspective on that primary.

[Diane]

Team Clinton is now comparing Obama to Kenneth Starr for stating he intends to delve into her background, as she has with his.

Once again, I'm gobsmacked at how despicable she is. I won't vote for McCain, but I don't think I can in good conscience vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. She embodies much of what I despise about the Republican party.

Who is the Green Party candidate?

[demsnotsmart]

--------
--------

HRC = :-) GOP

--------
--------

[Mark]

I wonder what Mrs. Clinton would be preaching if she were up by 100+ delegates? You can rest assure that she would be "thinking of her party's welfare" and urging Barack to bow out for the sake of the party.

Hillary really disapointed me in this campaign. She has proven to be the single most, disingenuine person in politics and yes even more than George dubya himself.

What a disgrace for the democratic voters. This should have been a slam-dunk after almost 8 years of George!

Shame on you Hillary! Shame on the super delegates! Shame on the DNC!

[Frolomo]

"Frankly, as an Obama supporter myself, I obviously hope he wins the nomination. But if he doesn't, I'm not going to act like a 5 year-old. I'll walk into that voting booth in November and select Clinton. This isn't a time to "take your ball and go home" like a child."

I do not want to be represented by an individual such as HRC who would use any dirty tricks or do anything to be elected. She is an individual without integrity.

Besides, John McCain will win the election, hands down. She carries to much baggage

I need to decide weather I stay at home, during the elections ,or vote for McCain if HRC is nominated for the Democratic Party

[Nate]

For the sake or reference, if the Democratic Party followed a winner-take-all system that awarded delegates based on the number of electoral votes that a state has (i.e. 55 delegates for California, 34 for Texas, 4 for New Hampshire, etc.), this is what the Obama-Clinton standings would look like:

Scenario 1 -- Without Florida and Michigan

Clinton... 214
Obama... 193

* With a maximum of 494 "delegates"/ votes available(remember, no Florida and Michigan in this scenario), either candidate would need 248 for a majority.

Scenario 2 -- Florida and Michigan for Clinton

Clinton... 258
Obama... 193

* With a maximum of 538, the magic number would be 270.

I recognize that this is not the system in place. I am just offering this as an alternative method of comparing the success that Obama and Clinton have had in the primaries and caucuses. Yes, Obama has won far more states, but they have been much smaller states.

[Frolomo]

To Steve Wimer
"How come you can say Hillary won with no other candidates on the ballot? It's called default! Some people ask dumb questions."

The LA Lakers would not gain any points if the play a pick up game with the NY Knicks. The game has to be acording to the NBA rules and must be sanccion by it.

[melissa]

Great points-- with one exception-- it does not look like a draw between Clinton and Obama--

She only gained between 5-10 delegates on Tuesday--mathematically there is very little chance if any that Clinton can beat Obama's delegate count. He's just too far ahead-- he not only won eleven states but in most of them he won by a huge margin.

I agree with those who critique the democratic primary system as being wacky, antiquated, in need of overhaul, even but you can't change the rules in the middle of a game and Clinton is an irresponsible candidate to argue for this. It shows little regard for the democratic party and I've lost all respect for her-- and may possibly lose all respect for the democratic party if it does not play by its own rules.

Yes, the super delegates can overrule the popular vote, but this would be the nail in the DNC coffin.

[Mia]

"HILLARY CLINTON has lied and cheated all thru this campaign. This woman has NO integrity or honour. She will do anything including STEAL this election if she is allowed to. She is the worse kind of politician. I want my daughter to see a woman President someday, but NEVER this caniveing witch."

Oh great - it's comments like these that make me shake my head. You can't even spell "conniving" correctly; it certainly doesn't help how judgmental, idiotic, and pompous-spewing misogynist you come across to the rest of us. Go back to school and learn some things before spouting off your stupidity.

[Pooja b]

Just wondering when the media will start to take a hard look at Obama and stop theie ridiculous infatuation with him? When is anyone going to discuss the skeletons in his closet ? I'd also like to know from the Obama supporters how this man will unify the party when he is a separatist at heart (remember the 13 tenets of his church)? He also happens to have an extremely close relationship with the minister of his church who openly denounces gays and gives a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan. This same minister is the first person he thanked when he became senator. he has many underlying issues that the Republicans are going to exploit once the national election comes around. I'm not saying hil doesnt have any but most of hers are out in the open. Its interesting that the majority of his campaign is based on a speech he made denouncing the war before he was even in the senate. Who knows what his actual record and views are. He likes to complain that he accidentally miscast his ballot while voting on contentious issues so he can have his cake and eat it to. Being a good speaker and regurgitating what has been written by your speechwriter does not make a good candidate. All his major gaffes have been while he's asked to answer questions on his own (ie meeting w/ heads of unfriendly states, going after Pakistan, etc). Unfortunately hope and inspiration alone cannot change our country.

[nic]

Long live the oligarchy! Long live Clinton!

I find it highly ironic that a large amount of Clinton Democrats are preaching a system that is...well, completely undemocratic.

Overturn caucuses (perhaps the most functional unit of democracy). Count votes in states where their candidate was the only one on the ticket. Sue the party when rules don't suit you. How the hell is that even remotely democratic? Who are you people, and why are you in my party?

Don't you see why we're voting for Obama now? We are sick of the oligarchy. I'm not surprised a good amount of Hillary supporters will defect in the general election if Barack wins...McCain and the GOP are definitely a better ideological match for them.

[nic]

Pooja,

Assuming by your post, you're one of the many uneducated white males who makes up Clinton's base...when was the last time you actually read a newspaper?

sincerely,
An educated white male

[Mia]

To Pooja b who wrote: "Just wondering when the media will start to take a hard look at Obama and stop theie [sic] ridiculous infatuation with him?...."

Finally...an intelligent, well thought-out post albeit a few typos. Thank you for this.

[Guy Richardson]

My goodness, whether ethical or not, re-voting in Florida and Michigan will prove to be the final dagger to the Clinton campaign and with what little integrity they have left.