Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004

April 26, 2008 5:33 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National Committee rules.

What's so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign's most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these states should abide by the DNC's instructions -- even if that meant stripping them of their delegates.

In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.

Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted -- along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee -- to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.

Ickes now is a leader of the "count Michigan and Florida" rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.

Now comes this curious find, on Daily Kos.

It turns out that irrepressible Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe once -- when he was DNC chairman -- threatened to strip Michigan of delegates if that state's Democrats carried out their long-time goal of disobeying the DNC calendar.

In his lively book, "What A Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals," McAuliffe tells the tale. If you're an Amazon.com member, you can read the passage for yourself on pages 324 and 325.

McAuliffe at the time had been pushing for early contests for South Carolina and a Western state with a large Latino population, perhaps Arizona or New Mexico.

"Our plan became very controversial," McAuliffe writes. "Some people thought any change was bad. Others thought we were not shaking things up enough. Leading the charge for more radical alterations in the primary calendar was Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who thought Iowa and New Hampshire should not have exclusive rights on voting first and that it was time for other states to have a turn. He had pushed unsuccessfully for change before the 2000 elections and was back in full force this election cycle. He made it very clear on the telephone that if I allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, then Michigan was going to act on its own and put its primary first."

McAuliffe invited Levin to make his argument before the full DNC meeting on Jan. 19, 2002. Levin did, and his motion was defeated by a unanimous vote.

"After the vote, the issue was settled in my mind -- however, not in Carl's," McAuliffe writes.

On Feb. 1, 2003, Levin, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Dingell's wife Debbie (a DNC member and power broker unto herself) called McAuliffe.

"They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire's," McAuliffe writes, "which would have led to complete chaos since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.

"'If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,' I told him.

"They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority...The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I'd had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl's Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all...

"Soon Carl and I were going at it.

"'I'm going outside the primary window,' he told me definitively.

"'If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,' I said. 'We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost.'

"He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"'You won't deny us seats at the convention,' he said.

"'Carl, take it to the bank,' I said. 'They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.'

"We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it."

Clinton herself said, in October 2007, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." She said she was keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored the state.

It wasn't until Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses in January that she acted as if the Florida and Michigan contests had any meaning at all. As Tallahassee political journalist S.V. Dáte recently wrote in Slate, "Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it."

As for Ickes and McAuliffe -- they have exercised a great deal of clout. But it has been in the name of preserving order, even if that meant stripping recalcitrant state Democrats of their delegates.

As McAuliffe said then -- "the rules are the rules."

Why? "For the good of the party," he wrote (then).

- jpt

April 26, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | Share | User Comments (234)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It's clear that the Democratic party is a mess and is, yet again, poised to make another McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Either Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, or, as it appears more necessary everyday, the party should be destroyed.

Posted by: Jeff in Illinois | Apr 27, 2008 6:55:56 PM

look up:

in Florida-Bill 537


in Michigan-B.O. & Edwards not sending their names on time to remain on the ballot. They were forced to remove it. In order to diminish Hillary's strength in this state,they strongly conducted a campaign via e-mail to their supporters to vote uncommitted.

case close

Posted by: ktow | Apr 27, 2008 6:53:28 PM

What sterling character these Democrat
leaders possess! A party like this
should be elected in perpituity. Who
even needs those rascally Repubs.
It's obvious that Harold Ickes sits
at the left hand of God.

Posted by: hombre | Apr 27, 2008 5:10:58 PM

I have been shocked at the false statements Hilary Clinton is making. She claims "I have gotten the most votes." This is a dishonest and deceptive marketing tool. Party rules govern, and this is both a misleading lie and truth. OUCH - fact is fact. Wow - I was very disappointed with her honesty and moral integrity. Hilary was counting Michigan and Florida. Those primary votes don't count.

NOTE - And fact is Democratic Candidate nomination is by DELEGATES WON. This year no Democratic candidate can win the nomination without the superdelegates voting. Yes, delegates won. Popular vote is calculated in each state, district by district, delegates awarded district by district, then totaled. Additional delegates may be awarded at a later time. Etc. If a State caucus was done actual true state popular votes not totaled.

Hilary Clinton signed an agreement to honor and abide by the DNC rules. All the candidates did. Those states were punished many months ago. Those discussions about moving primaries up were discussed with DNC several years prior to 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate race. Articles appears as early as 2002. The members of the governing body voted and states primaries if moved up would be unsanctioned and not count.

I really feel sorry for the voters of those states. Democratic Party Representatives of those states let all their voters down. That is the bottom line. And one court already declared this move up law was unconstitutional. Court of law has declared contests don't count.

It does not make a difference which candidate we are supporting. This is about being honest and demonstrating good sportsmanship. Rules can not be changed midstream. Too many variables would exist since no campaigning had been done. Fact is primaries were unsanctioned primaries. Fact is a contest of any kind that is not approved or is declared unsanctioned by the specific governing body will not count. Key here is "contest of any venue and any kind."

Barack Obama - I have only found his stances were for fairness. Did he stop new primaries in those states? My guess he had ample support for making sure the proposals were fair. Each proposal for new primary presented by those states were totally unfair to the poor voters and also Barack Obama. He suggested dividing up delegates 50-50 as quick fair resolution. Last proposal by Michigan would not wipe slate clean on democratic side and let all vote again. I was totally shocked reading the proposal. I was really hoping a fair proposal.

HILARY CLINTON - She started pursuing these votes after she fell behind. She kept herself on these ballots though. I saw what she may be doing. And as campaign unfolded - I was disappointed my "red flag" was right. I am alarmed at these dishonest and unfair tactics. Continued political sales of those primaries is dishonest and unfair. Discouraging to see her too using those poor voters.

New primary at this stage?? It is now too late, and poor voters of these states need to now address the representative at state level who sold them out. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are not to be blamed for any of this.

Voters lets show we are all good people that stand for real honesty and fairness.

Posted by: Sharon | Apr 27, 2008 4:57:58 PM

Count them or not, It still doesn't matter. Neither candidate will have enough elected delegates to seal the election. So the point is mute. The real question is who you think is more likely to win against McCain in the general election. And don't forget Hillary has won all the big states. Also don't forget that Michigan and Florida are both also big crucial states that we have to win in the general election in order to win the presidency.

Posted by: Angie Lines | Apr 27, 2008 4:14:38 PM

Yes, Dan, and can you understand why Obama would never have her on his ticket?? What do you think would happen to him?? He wouldn't last 30 minutes.

Posted by: jjboss | Apr 27, 2008 3:41:30 PM

The Clintons feel they are above any rules or regulations. Those apply to everyone else. The Clintons make up THEIR OWN rules which everyone is expected to fall in line and support.

I've often heard Hillary was a socialist candidate, I certainly agree now. Her presidency would be more of a dictatorship than democracy. I just learned about the communist law firm she worked for in the 60's. No wonder she wants to employ the Cold War strategy she used to justify her comments on oblitherating Iran. Seems she always goes back to the past instead of looking to the future.

News flash Hillary, this is a very different playing field than back in the Cold War era. It could very easiy heat up into a world war quickly. News flash Hillary today's economy isn't like the 90's and you can't apply Bill's policies to fix it. In fact Bill's policies with NAFTA and China trade contributed to where we are today. In fact special interest and lobbists run this country and you and Bill are in everyone of their pockets.

I say Hillary, Bill, give us all a break! We are not so stupid to believe anything you say anymore.

Posted by: Sick of Clintonism | Apr 27, 2008 2:01:55 PM

WHY DID OBAMA AND HIS SUPPORTERS STOP THE REVOTE IN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN?
WHY ARENT THE VOTES IN FLORIDA ALINE BEING COUNTED AS IS----EWVERYBODY WAS THERE. THE VOTERS DID NOTHING WRONG--
OBAMA IS TRYING TO STEAL THE ELECTION......VOTES FROM ALL AMERICANS MUST COUNT.

Posted by: TJ | Apr 27, 2008 1:17:56 PM

SINCE WHEN DID MAINTAINING PARTY UNITY BECOME THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF HILLARY CLINTON?
SHE OWES NOBODY ANYTHING .
SHE HAS A RIGHT TO RUN TO WIN..

Posted by: TJ | Apr 27, 2008 1:12:55 PM

Stealth Obama supporter Donna Brazille DID strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates.

Posted by: OxyCon | Apr 27, 2008 12:25:54 PM

Justin,

You are silly. You think that Hillary Clinton stripped the FL and MI votes?

Posted by: countallthevotes | Apr 27, 2008 12:16:33 PM

The rules made by the DNC are not the Constitution or anything close. And, the leaders of the DNC are not political gods, even though they may see themselves as such.

If applied, the DNC primary rules do need to be applied equally to each and every state that was in violation regardless of who the state went to.

Discarding the votes of Michigan and Florida puts the DNC and the party as a whole on the same level as the Florida scam that got Dubya elected.

Perhaps, everyone needs to remember who set the primary date in Florida...the Republican Party!

Posted by: Jayhawk | Apr 27, 2008 12:04:12 PM

countallthevotes,

The rules committee decided on who to punish and how. They chose to punish MI and FL by stripping their delegates. Clinton had more pull on that committee than any of the six candidates. She very nearly had a majority, and her people voted strip the MI and FL delegates.

Now stop with the lies and evasion. The Clinton people did this, and now they're trying to change the rules to suit them. If a candidate and her people are willing to behave this way in a primary, just imagine how little respect they'd show for the Constitution and rule of law. We've had seven years of that, we don't need any more.

Posted by: Justin | Apr 27, 2008 11:52:11 AM

If the delegates are split evenly in Michigan and Florida, then the delegates from every state that broke the rules need to be evenly split (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina).

The nominee will simply be selected at the convention by votes of delegates and superdelegates. That gives equal treatment to each and every state in question.

And, while we are at it, caucus results, in whatever state they were held need to be discarded with representation being evenly split.

Caucuses are a pathetic excuse for a means of candidate selection and need to be eliminated from any present or future consideration.

Posted by: Jayhawk | Apr 27, 2008 11:48:59 AM

One more item about Howard Dean's and the DNC's failure in leadership:

If it is so important for Michigan and Florida to be held accountable for breaking the "rules," then why are New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina not being held to the same level of accountability for their rules transgressions?

Could it be that Florida and Michigan voters would determine a candidate who has more influence in American politics than Dean, Pelosi, and the entire DNC?

Posted by: Jayhawk | Apr 27, 2008 11:42:40 AM

Michigan and Florida disobeyed party rules knowing what would happen and BOTH Clinton and Obama agreed to the DNC ruling ,with no fight or protest from either side . Well , surprise surprise ! Clinton starts getting her fanny whooped and suddenly says the ruling is not fair and suddenly she is so concerned with Michigan and Florida and Democracy , of course she wants their votes counted even though Obama did not bother to campaign in Florida and his name was not even on the ballot in Michigan and many people didn't vote because of the ruling ,they decided why vote if our states votes won't matter or be counted ! So this is just another desperate and completely unethical ploy on the part of Clinton who has no shame . The only fair way to count Florida and Michigan would be to split the delegates evenly and that's all that counts .

Posted by: Ray | Apr 27, 2008 11:36:42 AM

The television interview of Howard Dean this morning reinforces my beliefs that the failure of the Democratic Party leadership will result in the failure of the Democratic candidate in November.

Howard Dean is still seething with resentment from his own failed presidential candidacy. After he had been annointed as the frontrunner, he was soundly defeated. Now, he wants justification of his own failure by a repeat of history.

Throughout the entire interview, Howard Dean tried to portray himself as a neutral referee rather than a participant in the rules debacle he is currently presiding over. Mr. Dean, we all know better.

Regardless of what excuses Dean, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democratic leadership make, the voters of Michigan and Florida will determine the outcome of the November election.

Not even Jeremiah Wright could damage the Democratic Party as much as the failure of the DNC has already done.

Michigan and Florida voters will be heard...one way or another.

Posted by: Jayhawk | Apr 27, 2008 11:36:34 AM

Typical ---Her campaign staff is just as deceitful as she@ her sneaky husband are. What does it take America to wake up and see those Clintons for what they really are---Liars and hypocrites

Posted by: Dan A | Apr 27, 2008 11:09:50 AM

For those of you upset that Florida and MICH have not yet been included> Please consider the following about New Hampshire. It has few people. It is physically tiny. It has only a few towns. Therefore, any person, even you reading this, can campaign there and be heard. The whole idea is to allow a democratic process that any one can afford to be in. If you have big states first ONLY the rich and famous will be candidates. MICH and FLORIDA should NEVER be first.
Only small states allow an unknown to be part of the early process and to gain traction. If we have states like Florida, with 25 million people, first, you turn the election into a nobility only event, for the BRAND NAMES and BILLIONAIRES.
Please stop being angry about the MICH and Florida people. They will get to vote and maybe they will actually learn about the issues while they have this time on their hands. Any of you know the only candidate remaining in the race, to speak to restore the constitution?
Did you know that the Constitution has been erased? You no longer have the right to be charged with a crime, a speedy trial or to see the evidence against you or to cross examine witnesses.
Stop worrying about the mess the the Florida Republican and MICH Democrat local people made trying to shove their way in after they have been told in plain English not to do it. Do you understand why we MUST not have large states first?
It would be the end of democracy. You would get Clintons and the super rich and that's all.

Posted by: bruce becker | Apr 27, 2008 10:38:37 AM

On the scale of one to 10, 10 being best
Which You'd rather vote for: One who said a White lie or One who spent 20 years listening the hate mongerer and said nothing: white lie(7) listening to hate words about the country I live in (-10)

Posted by: ruthmatters | Apr 27, 2008 10:24:46 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS