RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Ickes Sees "Perversion" at the DNC Meeting
May 31, 2008 3:46 PM
Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., took issue just now with any notion that the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is conceding anything by agreeing to a proposal being floated to seat the full Florida delegation with each delegate getting half a vote -- thus netting Clinton 19 pledged delegates.
"Concession?" said Ickes. "Gimme a break. Under their formula, Hillary Clinton loses delegates, not gains delegates. It is just a perversion of the word to call that a concession."
At last year's DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, Ickes was one of several Clinton supporters to vote to not recognize any delegates from either Florida or Michigan because the two states were about to violate party rules and hold their contests early. He has since changed his position on the matter.
- jpt
May 31, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary | Permalink | Share | User Comments (103)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Dear Mr Ickes.
You were in charge of the dnc when Fl/MI were first discussed. To now expect a differant outcome is retarded.
Not to worry, you'll find a new job, just keep saying "do you want fries with that?"
Posted by: oldwhiteguy | May 31, 2008 9:31:21 PM
They shouldnt have seated the delegates at all... The elections were not true or fair elections.
You can not tell people it doesnt matter and then later change the rules and say it counts there rules where the election doesnt mater so they do not show a true example of the will of the people.
That would never happen here the rules said the election dont count.. So they should not count.
Are you living in America or Russia ?
The Only way the party should have been seated is if they where split 50/50 so in reality then the election had didnt count with regards to giving anyone any benifit.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: aussiewatcher | May 31, 2008 9:28:12 PM
Hello President Mccain. The DNC just handed you the Presidency today.
Posted by: Trish | May 31, 2008 9:26:53 PM
The Clinton campaign wants to award rule breaking. I guess anything goes to win the nomination. She said on public radio that the votes in Michigan wont count, because she thought she would have easy sailing to the nomination. But she left her name on the ballot even though all the other presidential candidates took their names out...they were playing according to the rules. But I guess keeping the rules is not what Hilary does. Now that she is not winning she wants to move the goal post. I always came to Hilary's defense when friends would be critical of her during Bill's presidency. I always was surprised how they seemed to hate her and could never understand why. Now I know why. She is a vicious person and is determined to divide the Democrats because she feels entitled to this nomination. She cannot understand how a humble senator from Illinois can be winning this campaign. Obama is being generous in giving her any delegates at all.
Posted by: Ann | May 31, 2008 9:24:44 PM
I am fed up with the DNC!! Anyone can see that they are doing everything they can to make sure Obama is the nominee. SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW OBAMA WAS AWARDED DELEGATES FROM MICHIGAN WHEN HIS NAME WASN'T ON THE BALLOT??!! How is that fair!!
The DNC shot themselves in the foot today. They don't give a crap about the will of the people..they just care about getting the Messiah elected.
Mark my words....Obama has no chance!! Clinton supporters will unite against him. The DNC ruling today only hurt Obama's chances even more. I will not vote for an inexperienced candidate with the most liberal voting record in the Senate...with ties to hateful corrupt people like Ayers, Rezko, Wright and Pfleger. Wake up people!! Obama doesn't represent hope...he represents more uncertainty for the future of our great nation.
Posted by: Trish | May 31, 2008 9:20:04 PM
This is the first time in my 74 years (worked 8 years for political party) where a politician is awarded votes and delegates when he chose not to be on the ballot. WHY HAVE A BALLOT? WHY HAVE PEOPLE TO TO POLLS TO VOTE? JUST GIVE IT TO THE MOST CORRUPT CANDIDATE. This is just plain wrong, anyway one looks at it.
Posted by: Marla | May 31, 2008 8:53:04 PM
What was done today has made history. The democrat party took vote away from a candidate to give to someone who wasnt on the ballots.
"I didnt leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me."
Posted by: toby | May 31, 2008 8:41:36 PM
Sour grapes, anyone? Hillary supporters made fools of themselves today at the RBC meeting, as did their candidate in first saying the Michigan Primary "wouldn't count for anything" (to please NH voters) and then arguing with a straight face as a certain loser: "We must recognize these votes." Hail to Obama!
Posted by: Kiren | May 31, 2008 8:12:54 PM
Sour grapes, anyone? Hillary supporters made fools of themselves today at the RBC meeting, as did their candidate in first saying the Michigan Primary "wouldn't count for anything" (to please NH voters) and then arguing with a straight face as a certain loser: "We must recognize these votes." Hail to Obama!
Posted by: Kiren | May 31, 2008 8:12:40 PM
The Obama people are jumping up and down right now because they cheated and got by with it. Can't wait till Tony Rezko explains why he was forced to help buy the Obama Chicago mansion. Was it a pay-off or a bribe? Interesting.
Posted by: Mark | May 31, 2008 8:08:52 PM
To Karen-
So what if Obama is "the most liberal" senator. To me, "conservative" has become a bad word after these last 7 years. Selling their soul to the extreme religious right and Rovian tactics has done more damage to our country than any liberal could have done in that same time period.
Posted by: Ted | May 31, 2008 8:06:18 PM
Karen -
Obama's voting record is NOT "exactly the same as Hillary's"...it is much shorter!
Posted by: Amy | May 31, 2008 7:49:53 PM
What kind of "leader" resigns from his hate-preaching church by sending a letter then has his spokesman announce it for him??? Should we get used to this hiding from controversy...letting others do the clean up for him?
Posted by: Amy | May 31, 2008 7:46:26 PM
Re: "Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entireU.S.Senate."
No he isn't. Ted Kennedy is. Look up Obama's voting record. It is exactly the same as Hillary's.
Posted by: Karen | May 31, 2008 7:25:29 PM
Hillary should run as an independent, after 50 years as a Dem it is over, i will vote for Mccain. To hell with the left wingers.
.The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entireU.S.Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet, Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable, so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet, Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have hijacked - "hijacked" - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. InIllinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban on all handguns in the state. These are radical left,Hollywood, andSan Franciscovalues, notMiddle Americavalues.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win, if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear
Posted by: JIm | May 31, 2008 7:12:27 PM
Harold Ickes has proven himself to be totally disingenuous in his words. His unveiled threat to take this to the credentials committee is just a bunch of blustering after a day of endless and worthless rhetoric. Did he actually think that the flawed results of Michigan should be accepted as is? Come on. Give me a break!
Posted by: J. T. Bigglesworth | May 31, 2008 7:08:07 PM
The HillaRypublicans are not true Democrats. Hillary's own brother is hinting that he might vote for Bob Barr as the Independant candidate if she isn't selected. Having lived in GA during Barr's tenure, that is so damn disgusting that any Democrat would ever consider voting for him only because She wasn't the annoited one. See all you losers at the polls in November. Either do what is best for this country, or shut up. If you want four more years of George McBush, then keep on hatin'.
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | May 31, 2008 7:07:39 PM
This is pure craziness! The DNC made a clear decision at the outset and neither candidate objected. The DNC needs to hold to that decision and not be held hostage by those who are arrogant enough to bend, or not want to live by, rules when they don't suit. If we all did that, chaos would reign.
Posted by: AD | May 31, 2008 6:53:19 PM
Holy heck. I didn't realize there was room under that bus for whole church and it's 8000 person denomination. It's officially large enough to be it's own country. BO should jump under there and be president.
Posted by: PGHPAVOTER | May 31, 2008 6:41:44 PM
Ickes is himself a perversion, as is the Clinton elite who want to wrest this nomination from the best choice for Pres, and the best person to lead this country at this time.
Posted by: anotherpatrica | May 31, 2008 6:27:34 PM
Post a comment


