Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Obama on his US Surgeon Nominee, She Has Seen What’s “Broken” About Health Care
- President Obama Puts Congress 'On Notice' Regarding Health Care Reform: 'We Are Going to Get This Done'
- Surgeon General Nominee Was World News Tonight’s Person of the Week in 1995
- The Doctor Is (Finally) In: Obama To Nominate Regina Benjamin as Surgeon General
- President Obama Refocuses on Health Care/Stimulus
- Bob Woodruff Returns to Iraq
- President Obama Orders National Security Team to Review 2001 Afghanistan Massacre
- Will It Get Ugly? Both Sides Prepared for Start of Sotomayor Hearings Monday
- Obama in Africa
- Out of Africa
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Ickes Elaborates on Clinton's Plan to Move the Finish Line
May 06, 2008 9:10 PM
This actually could ultimately prove to be the most important development of the day.
At the Indianapolis Motor Speedway today Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, not only continued her aggressive outreach to white working class voters -- she indicated she wanted to move the finish line of her race.
Right now Democratic Party rules state that the candidate who first secures 2,025 delegates will be the nominee.
But hold the phone -- today Clinton said that number is actually 2,209.
She's counting Michigan and Florida -- states that held contests contrary to Democratic National Committee rules and were penalized as a result.
She's counting Michigan -- where Obama was not on the ballot. He removed his name, as did every other credible * Democrat except for Clinton.
Senior Clinton adviser Harold Ickes elaborates on this "new math" to Politico's Mike Allen.
By counting Michigan and Florida, Clinton when the primaries are over on June 3 will still be behind, Ickes said.
But she will be “substantially less than 100 delegates behind” Obama.
“We don’t believe that this party is going to go forward into a presidential race without seating both Florida and Michigan,” Ickes said.
“The Obama people keep talking about 2,025, which implies they don’t intend to seat Florida and Michigan,” Ickes said. “We think that’s a mistake on the part of the party – it’s foolish.”
You know what's funny?
There's a guy named Harold Ickes who was on the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee who voted last year to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates for violating the rules.
I mean what are the odds?
- jpt
* "Credible" added.
May 6, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (78)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Earl, you wrote: "...have you tried to purchase gas lately..."
You think the price of gasoline is high now? Should Sen. Obama become president, the Democrats will not only raise the federal tax on gasoline $1-$3 per gallon, but the $15 billion windfall tax that Sen. Obama wants to levy against the oil companies will result in less supply (the oil companies will have less income to explore, drill, produce, refine and distribute oil products). And when supply goes down, prices go up.
Earl, you also wrote: "...what do you think is responsible for the economy the way it is..its the Republican policies of war and low taxes for the rich..."
Where in the world do you get the idea that the rich have low taxes? The top 1% of the nation's wage earners account for 39% of the total income tax revenue. The top 5% of the nation's wage earners account for 60% of the total income tax revenue. The top 25% of nation's wage earners account for 86% of the total income tax revenue; and the nation's top 50% of wage earners account for 97% of the total income tax revenue.
Posted by: James Danley | May 7, 2008 9:40:45 PM
Wolf: If Senator Clinton is so bad why was she re-elected for a second Senate term? You know, I don't know ANY politicians who can perform miracles. However,if anyone can, it would be Hillary Clinton. You should have my Senators..I would give them to you with money attached for taking them away.
Posted by: mpwdc | May 7, 2008 9:38:48 PM
What the Democratic Party has done and is doing to the Clintons is shameful. The superdelegates were put into place for just this type of situation: to make sure the Party puts up the best person to challenge the opponent. The Party votes are split almost 50-50. The supers are saying they can't do their job because they can't take the nomination away from the African-American and the Black supporters of his candidacy? Not all Blacks support Obama. What about the half of the Party that supports Clinton? What about former Obama supporters that have changed their minds? What about voters in Florida and Michigan? For the Democratic Party to ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is the most seasoned and vetted candidate, that Hillary Clinton has served her Party well for 30 plus years, that Hillary Clinton has a very limited number of years left to endure the rigors of the Presidency, that she is the candidate who can best stand up to John McCain in November, that Hillary Clinton has as much if not more of the voters behind her, then the Democrativc Party is stupid. I will not vote for Obama, the face of inexperience and unanswered questions.
Posted by: mpwdc | May 7, 2008 9:33:05 PM
If Obama and the DNC were truly honorable, they would not so cavalierly be willing to disenfranchise the voters of MI and FL because of a party rule (note: not a law, a rule). If those elections were held today, HRC would win those states. Obama and the DNC have not spoken up for those voters because they wish to deliver the election to Obama. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but if this is how the party acts after trashing the Republicans in 2000 over the FL vote, then I will sit home in November or vote for McCain. At least, he is an honorable man.
Posted by: julie | May 7, 2008 5:56:22 PM
If Barack Obama is truly the "uniter" he claims to be, he will prove it and choose Hillary as his running mate.
Then, each can be deployed to the parts of the country where they connect best with voters, and create the biggest landslide win for Democrats in the last I don't know how many years.
Kennedy and LBJ didn't get along. That shouldn't be the criteria. Winning should.
If Obama picks someone else because it is his perogative, heaven help us. We'll probably see Bill Richardson on the ticket. And that won't help at all.
Lots of people who don't like Obama love Hillary. Why ignore the stats that show two very different Democrats out there voting? Put Hillary on the ticket and it will be a blow out in November.
Posted by: sherr | May 7, 2008 5:28:15 PM
Dear Eyes Wide Open:
I wish to invite you some time to my region of the country. It's a place with soaring unemployment and ranked first or 2nd in the nation for highest taxes. We are also noted for being one of the most polluted regions in the country and are rife with corruption, having just watched our governor resign amidst a national scandal...
...why do I mention this? Because I live in Hillary's senatorial state of NY. The state, she promised to help fix --- and then ignored, when she no longer needed our votes.
This is what we would have gotten with Hillary as our President. Nothing. Her experience is not the kind we need in this country.
Posted by: wolf | May 7, 2008 12:40:42 PM
Earl, you wrote: "One who would respond the same way to a heavily white area that may be hit by natural disaster as he would to a black area that is hit(remember Katrina and George Bush's response?)"
To imply that the fed's response (and specifically President Bush's response) to Katrina was race related is nonsense! Katrina and the aftermath were made worse because of the incompetence of the first responders. FEMA is NOT the first line responder.
Katrina was a disaster because: (1) It was the nation's worst natural disaster! (2) Mayor Nagin refused to order mandatory evacuations (in spite of repeated requests to do so by the feds) until it was too late; (3) Mayor Nagin allowed both the Superdome and the convention center to be evacuations centers without providing supplies and security (IT WAS NAGIN who left tens of thousands of evacuees stranded to fend for themselves); (4) Gov. Blanco blocked every attempt by the feds to take control of the situation, including sending in the National Guard until after the fact, and it was too late. (5) By the time the situation was handed over to FEMA it was total chaos.
Had the Louisiana and New Orleans local responders done their jobs -- as the local responders did in Florida, Alabama and Mississippi -- the recovery efforts would have been much smoother. All Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco had to do was to order immediate evacutions on Friday (Katrina hit Monday morning). The National Guard could have been called in -- on Friday -- to operate the 3,000 school buses (that just sat in the flooded baseyard) to evacuate people out of New Orleans.
The blame does not belong on FEMA, and more specifically President Bush, for what happened to New Orleans during Katrina and the immediate aftermath. The blame falls solely on shoulders of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin. Granted FEMA could have done a better job once they were in control. But before they could do THEIR job, they had to step in and do the job of the local reponders.
Using a sports analogy, FEMA is the closer, not the starter! When you start with the closer, then the effectiveness is nowhere near the same.
Posted by: James Danley | May 7, 2008 11:55:37 AM
Goes to show that you cannot make up real life
Posted by: Smith | May 7, 2008 11:06:43 AM
Eyes wide open:
You appreciate Hillary for her economic policy INCLUDING the temporary tax vacation, which more than 200 top economists including four Noble prize winners slammed as ridiculous, which should have proved to you that her understanding of economics is as poor as that of McCain is what you appreciate. You don't have to be an economist to know that she or McCain (by the way McCain is better than her in this regard for his campaign apparently recognized that they were wrong when the economists made their view known while her campaign insisted "they are not interested in finding an economist to support it but to solve the common people affected") can't have better understanding of a consess of hunderds of economists. If you appreciate her for that, then no comment .....
On the other hand, Obama and his reasoning was in line with the economists consensus. He got it right this time as well.
Posted by: eyes not opened | May 7, 2008 3:15:36 AM
fontapa:
You are SOOO wrong!
The things which made me admire Hillary are her Universal Health Plan, her economic plans INCLUDING the temporary gas tax vacation which B O lied about(check "fact.check"),her being able to come up with policy suggestions which if given the chance to reach your brain are sound and plausible (like "the umbrella of deterrance" which although not original is a something which should be seriously considered before being slapped down because it sounds powerful.
Also, her ability to think on her toes and speak without a teleprompter. unlike Obama who, in this regard, strongly resembles BUSH!
He IS a teflon man whose dirt is slowly clinging to his shoes and catching on the chinks of his vest... and by the time this election takes place should he be the contender, he will REALLY be black with all of his double dealings and alliances with anti-American associates.
Of them all, Wright was the most acceptable... and he'll be back... I promise!; twas just another political ploy. And with the help of the press and the media, it worked.
In any case, the party is not as important to me as the country is.
If I can't vote for Hillary..... I will absolutely cast my vote for McCain.
Obama, is too green.. and too mean for me!
Posted by: eyes wide open | May 7, 2008 1:13:38 AM
Eyes wide open, I'm gonna keep this breif.
You are mistaken. You will not vote for McCain. If you were voting for Hillary, then your number one issue is the Iraq War.
McCain is married to the Iraq War, he'll keep us there forever.
His platforms like a photo negative of Hillary's. You won't vote for him, because of this.
Trust me. You'll follow your conscience and vote Obama or Clinton to end the war. To do otherwise is to have too much innocent blood on your hands.
Posted by: fontapa | May 7, 2008 12:51:18 AM
JGAW, you know Chicago has multiple slum lords. You tell me how Rezko is the only, the first, or the worst. Chicago has had a problem regulating its tenements for YEARS. Is all this Obama's fault? Can a state senator overturn city practices if it is a local jurisdiction matter?
___________________________
But OBAMA was the state senator who took money from Rezko which had supposedly been intended to heat his broken down, frigid tenements which housed Obama's mostly black constituents!
I can understand the black vote leaning towards a black man. But I CANNOT
comprehend why it should be THIS black man.... who has done nothing in their behalf..... except pay off some of the posters....
This election has been a joke played on us by the media.
Should he Obama win the election, our country will suffer.
As for the "party", I care more about my country than I do for the DNC; B O will NEVER get my vote.
If I can't vote for HIllary, I will vote for Mccain so that the empty suit goes back to Illinois.
At lest McCain is not a threat to this country!
Posted by: eyes wide open | May 7, 2008 12:47:23 AM
nectanebus -
Dude, chill. Seriously, have faith in our candidate Obama. There's no chance in hell for Hillary to win this thing. None. Nada. Zilch. The only reason she's still in it is because the media has helped her convince people she does have a chance.
After tonight, her chances are even worse. Superdelegates will either step in now, or after the last states have voted, but either way she's cooked.
Posted by: fontapa | May 7, 2008 12:20:55 AM
the democrat party has always been the most racist group in American history and that will be clearly revealed when they rob Obama of his fairly won victory. the whole world is about to see once and for all that the democrat party has always had one set of rules for blacks and another for whites.
Posted by: nectanebus | May 7, 2008 12:13:48 AM
dhsu,
I would love to continue,but
alas, it is my bedtime.
goodnight. i will be on another time.
Posted by: jgaw | May 6, 2008 11:45:00 PM
jgaw:
I see your point about Clinton, I'm not discounting it. The point is that both Clinton and Obama care about the US citizens, so there is no point branding either of them as 'socialist' or 'left-leaning (economically)' because both of them have essentially the same socialist health care plan.
I don't care about Obama's mom, I was also just making a point.
I also believe the Democratic Party tends to attract more liberal voters. Therefore, I see no reason why Democrats should not support the more liberal-leaning Obama. If you wanted conservative policies, might as well go all the way and vote for McCain. That being said, this is my own viewpoint and I do not talk for Obama supporters everywhere, contrary to many other Obama and Hillary supporters alike.
Please, continue this enlightening argument. It's been awhile since my debating days.
Posted by: dhsu | May 6, 2008 11:39:39 PM
dhsu,
sen. clinton healthcare plan is more in line with uk, canada.
you can google stanley durham marxist
and read about his mom.
he has the most liberal voting record of all, and the washington est. are not going to just roll over and show the soft side just because he hs arrived.
with the american people stuck in the middle.
Posted by: jgaw | May 6, 2008 11:33:27 PM
Lisa,
I know that.
The problem he always changes his mind.
Posted by: blue Irish | May 6, 2008 11:29:01 PM
jgaw:
If you want to talk about left-leaning, Hillary's universal health plan will cover 12 million more people than Obama's will. That aligns her more with socialist nations such as Cuba and Venezuela, with their considerations towards the healthcare of their citizens.
Now, does that not make her more socialist and left-leaning than Obama?
But of course, Obama's "marxist mom" (I'm not completely sure where you got this from) definitely represents who Obama is, and makes him more economically "left" than Hillary, yes?
Hillary, despite her experience, has decided to stick to the status quo regarding Iran and Cuba. That is exactly what shows me Hillary's status as a political conservative, of which i do not think we need another. In political terms, I applaud Obama for being "left" (or liberal) and conforming more to the ideals of the Democratic Party.
Posted by: dhsu | May 6, 2008 11:24:21 PM
Blue Irish if you don't know how Obama will help the economy then find out, go to his site, research it.
Posted by: lisa | May 6, 2008 11:22:15 PM
Post a comment

