- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton Will Fight As Long As It Takes
Email
ShareFebruary 16, 2008 4:28 PM
ABC's David Chalian, Teddy Davis, Eloise Harper, Kate Snow and Sunlen Miller report: Sen. Hillary Clinton is ready to fight for the Democratic nomination all the way to the Democratic National Convention in August if that’s what it takes, but her top strategists say they’re not expecting a nasty brawl in Denver.
"My prediction is there will be no fight," said Clinton campaign advisor Harold Ickes on a conference call with reporters Saturday. "All of this is going to be settled out before we hit the floor."
"We don’t think our party or our candidate will be served by a bitter floor fight," he added later.
But Ickes also made it very clear that Clinton would not give up without a fight -- no matter what happens in the upcoming primary battles with Sen. Barack Obama.
Ickes conceded that Clinton is not doing as well in the fight for delegates as she might have been doing if her campaign had paid more attention to states that hold caucuses -- states where Obama has scored big victories recently.
"We didn’t make as much of an effort as we probably should have," he said.
But he predicted that Clinton will "hold her own" in Wisconsin on Tuesday night and said the campaign expects her to win in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on March 4. Ickes said the demographics of Pennsylvania also favor Clinton and predicted she will win there on April 22.
While the Obama campaign has predicted he will stay ahead in the race for delegates, the Clinton camp says Obama is getting ahead of himself and declaring victory prematurely.
"He'd like to be nominated right now, but there are a lot of delegates who have yet to be selected," Ickes said.
They see a tied ballgame.
After the last Democratic primary contest in Puerto Rico in June, Ickes said Clinton and Obama will be "neck and neck."
"Shortly after that she will wrap it up," he predicted.
That presumes that Clinton will be able to convince Democratic superdelegates -- party leaders and elected officials -- to support Clinton even if the people they represent have voted for Obama.
Ickes said those superdelegates, which the Clinton campaign prefers to call "automatic delegates," will be key.
"The central fact is, notwithstanding all the controversy ginned up by the Obama campaign, both of these candidates are going to need them," Ickes said.
Both campaigns continue to aggressively court superdelegate support.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said today that they would continue to pursue superdelegates even though they believe they can win the nomination without them.
"We're not going to unilaterally disarm as the Clinton campaign does its best to use superdelegates to overturn the will of the Democratic voters," Burton said.
Clinton's camp, meanwhile, contends that superdelegates should not be swayed by the voters of their districts but should support the person they think is best fit to be president.
"Automatic delegates are supposed to exercise their best judgment," Ickes said.
The Clinton campaign is also continuing to push for delegates from Florida and Michigan to be counted at the convention.
Ironically, last summer Ickes -- as a sitting member of the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Commission -- voted to strip those states of their delegates when the states moved up their primaries to dates before February 5. Those moves were seen as a threat to the traditional first states Iowa and New Hampshire and were therefore punished by the party.
"With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt that we had an obligation to enforce them," Ickes said.
But now Ickes, as a member of Clinton's team, wants to change the rules.
"Why should Florida not be heard at the convention?" Ickes asked today.
He said some 1.7 million Democrats voted in Florida and their voices should be heard. And he rejected the idea of a do-over, as some have suggested.
Although she did not actively campaign in Florida -- under an agreement made by all of the Democratic candidates -- Clinton easily won the majority of Florida's delegates back in January.
"The process has taken place. Everybody was on an equal footing. We see no reason for a re-do," Ickes said.
Former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus, responding for the Obama campaign, said that if the superdelegates don't go with the voters, then "in real technical language what we're going to have is a mess."
On the issue of superdelegates and specifically the Clinton campaign calling them "automatic delegates" Mabus said, "Well I think it's whatever you want to call them -- superdelegates or automatic delegates."
Mabus, ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the Clinton administration, took the most issue with Ickes devaluing Obama's win's in red states like Nebraska and Idaho to make the point that the Democrats need states like Florida and California to win the nomination.
He called it "spin" and "criticism for Barack Obama winning red states."
"Their argument that somehow if you live in Mississippi or Alabama or Georgia that your vote ought to be discounted, that we shouldn't make an effort, that's just a theory that has been cobbled together to represent the results that have transpired so far," he said
Mabus said the only way Democrats can win in November is to pick up small states, too -- otherwise there’s no margin for error for the Democrats.
"The Clinton message appears to be keep doing what we’ve been doing in the past two elections -- and that attitude has hurt us," he said.
February 16, 2008 in Bush, George W. | Permalink | User Comments (548)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Very Good Story. Before you Obamanites start whining and crying, I am sure if your guy was a little behind and won Florida and Michigan, you would be very supportive of his efforts to stay in the race and keep fighting. A lesser candidate than Mrs. Clinton just might throw in the towel. I want my next President to be a fighter and a scrapper, and I see that in Hillary Clinton
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | Feb 16, 2008 2:44:16 PM
hillary has what it takes and doesn't fold when things are a little tough. obama just whines when he experiences a little setback. hillary is the one who has what it takes to do the job of president. obama just wants to be president. btw, if you're interested in analysis of the dirty trick obama is trying to pull in puerto rico,
Posted by: so saddened | Feb 16, 2008 2:56:05 PM
If she cost the dems the election in nov because of stubbornness, i may never forgive her.
Posted by: Dem in Chicago | Feb 16, 2008 2:58:12 PM
So Saddened:
Thank you for that eye opening link. Why isn't the MSM carrying what he is trying to do in Puerto Rico? Talk about dirty politics. Obama is shameless.
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | Feb 16, 2008 3:00:15 PM
Jordan,
You can not change the rules for either. Florida and Michigan do not and should not count for either.
This entire florida/michigan mess should have been figured out beofre hand. HRC did not pursue it because she honestly tyhought that she would not neeed them for the nom, dont forget that. Now that she is in a fight she now again flips to serve her needs. It has nothing to do with being a fighter. FAir is fair and we are talking litigation if she trys to force the delegates in. If that happens we are looking another 4-8 years of a REpub
Posted by: ron | Feb 16, 2008 3:03:36 PM
WAKE UP ALL DEMOCRATS!!! IF OBAMA BECOMES THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE; JOHN MCCAIN IS JUST GOING TO FEEL HIM OFF INCH BY INCH. OBAMA IS LIKE A SACRIFICE LAMB TO JOHN MCCAIN. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Posted by: VERY Independent | Feb 16, 2008 3:03:36 PM
Sorry Ron, it is not Democratic to take away the votes of almost 2 million Florida votes and the votes in Michigan no matter who they voted for. The Democrats have no right to punish voters in their owe party because the Republicans moved up the primary. That is nonsense. This alone will destroy the Democratic Party and open the doors for another 4 years of the Republicans. Hillary had nothing to do with it.
Do you think Florida and Michigan will come out in force for any Democratic candidate, if their votes don't count? McCain wins by a landslide in those states.
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | Feb 16, 2008 3:08:06 PM
Keep going girl that's the spirit the world need strong women, and America needs a strong President not a flip flopper that votes present instead of taking a stance.
Posted by: SJ | Feb 16, 2008 3:08:59 PM
If anyone costs the Dems the race it will be Obama. He was advised in the beginning by the party that he was not ready, not experienced enough. His ego got in the way of what was best for the party and the country.
Posted by: Firefighter | Feb 16, 2008 3:09:12 PM
Right lets not count all those FL votes for Clinton, but if the Supers don't chose Obama they are going against the will of the people.....ok I get it!!!
Posted by: SJ | Feb 16, 2008 3:11:12 PM
IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT; HE CHOSE TO TAKE HIS NAME OFF THE MICHIGAN BALLOT AND CLINTON OBVIOUSLY WON FLORIDA AS WELL. IT WAS NOT WISE FOR OBAMA TO REMOVE HIS NAME IN THE MICHIGAN BALLOT. AS A MAN, IT IS FAIR THAT HE SHOULD ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS POOR DECISION. REMEMBER, HE VOTED PRESENT MORE THAN A 100 TIMES, INSTEAD OF TAKING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIS ACTION BY VOTING EITHER YES OR NO!
Posted by: SO Independent | Feb 16, 2008 3:11:32 PM
I also hope she fights to the end and that every vote counts what makes Obama supporters think they can win with out the party united I wonder.I also want to see a fighter in office not someone who would give up just because some think she should to bad the media has been so bias Obama is so untested other wise I like him. But I wouldn't leave my todler in charge of my older children
Posted by: bishop | Feb 16, 2008 3:12:12 PM
It's always fair to change the rules when you are losing!
Posted by: judy | Feb 16, 2008 3:16:30 PM
Florida and Michigan were not supposed to have any voting at all. Why they went ahead and why Clinton left her name on the ballots just says a lot about her, same old, same old. Always trying to get above it all and get her way appealing to unclear situations to gain the ungainable..Another trick under her sleeve..
Posted by: carmen | Feb 16, 2008 3:16:48 PM
And had they let Flordia stand who would of had the mo then
Posted by: bishop | Feb 16, 2008 3:17:09 PM
ITS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR THE VOTERS TO BE HEARD AND NOBODY HAS ANY RIGHTS TO DISENFRANCHISE THE VOTERS!
UNLESS YOU LEAVE IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY
Posted by: Sam Lim | Feb 16, 2008 3:19:37 PM
I'll give you that Jordan. Clinton won't give up early.
But I think you're seeing that my guess might just be right, about the drama being played out between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and this message wasn't meant for us as much as it was for the DNC.
This makes the obstacles even higher for Clinton, who is trying to catch up in pledged delegates as well as overcome whatever the Democratic leadership might do next.
Posted by: Paul | Feb 16, 2008 3:20:40 PM
OK, in an attempt to keep this conversation somewhat pleasant :)
Here is a thought. I do not think that Michigan can properly seat because of the names that were not on the ballot. It is not clear in that case.
But in Florida the names WERE on the ballot and a record turn out didn't CARE that they might not count.
But here is the stickler and I live here and I swear on whatever holy book you want me to produce, even on Mother, Country, Clinton, or Obama . . . Mr. Barack Obama ran ads, on comcast cable, in clear violation of the agreed upon rules. He ran these ads 2 weeks prior to the primary. He ran them mainly on news channels, starting at roughly Noon Time, through about 10pm, each day, about 8 ads per day. And they were all the same ads. Obama for America was on the ad, and so was sponsored by Barack Obama, in the right side of the ad. It was the Obama 08 ad that had Professor Lawrence Tripe or was it Trite? No, I think it was Tripe. Anyway. He ran those ads in violation of the rules.
So if anything, at least Florida has a way to be seated due to the fact all names were on the ballot, and no one cared that they were not to be counted. They came out and destroyed the Republicans, but even more, Hillary won over Obama, who came in second in the state for both sides, she beat him by almost 250,000 votes. And he ran ads where no other candidate did.
So his violation and yet his resulting loss, shows that if they wanted to, they could say even that he had an unfair advantage, but lost dispite it.
So in this, I think Florida has a case. But in Michigan it is not fair to the other candidates whose names were not on the ballot. There would be no way to decipher who they had voted for, outside of Clinton and Kucinich. Florida was clear. And Obama did sort of cheat by running ads.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | Feb 16, 2008 3:23:00 PM
Paul: Your guess could be very accurate, but Mr. Obama's supporters always try to blame Hillary directly for the mess the DNC created. If they don't decide on all these tangibles real fast, the party will implode at the convention right before America's eyes. It will be a sad time in our history, and forget about Obama and Clinton. The Republicans will steal the election, once the Democratic party is weakened and fractured beyond repair.
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | Feb 16, 2008 3:26:06 PM
Anyway, on to Wisconsin and Hawaii. There are 17 contests left, if I understand correctly, and these are the next two.
Wisconsin has the type of voters which have gone for Clinton thus far - blue collar, etc. Yet Obama has a small edge in current polls. So this one should be close either way.
Hawaii is an unknown - I haven't seen a poll from there yet. Obama might have some edge in that he spent some of his childhood there, but I don't have much understanding of the political landscape there.
Let's say Clinton takes both. How many delegates can she net?
Posted by: Paul | Feb 16, 2008 3:26:09 PM
Post a comment
