- Condi Rice Plays for the Queen
- White House Christmas Tree Arrives
- Specter Prepared for 2010 if Opponent is Chris Matthews or Not
- Bush Calls Troops on Thanksgiving
- Bush Calls Indian Prime Minister
- Russian President Gets Red Carpet Treatment From Venezuelan Leader
- Russian President Gets Red Carpet Treatment From Venezuelan Leader
- Bush Bails Out Birds: Pardons Pumpkin and Pecan
- Barbara Bush Recovering from Abdominal Procedure
- Barbara Bush Hospitalized, Condition Not Life Threatening
- House Race Update: Ohio Sup. Ct. to Rule on Franklin County Votes
- Come Get Your Money -- $266 Million Worth
- Obama Points to Farm Subsidies for Budget Cuts
- For Obama, a Cautionary Tale on Budget Cuts
- Gates Cabinet Appointment 'A Done Deal'
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Richardson, Bill
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« President Clinton Tries To Keep Politics Out Of A Church, Without Much Help From Its Bishop | Main | Hillary the Hunter »
Clinton Will Fight As Long As It Takes
February 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 Clinton, Hillary | Permalink | User Comments (548)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/26192946
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Will Fight As Long As It Takes:
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
Um, the party leadership in FL and Mich knew, when they went ahead with their voting that it was not going to count. Te candidates agreed to it. Haven't we had enough of changing the rules so that they suit us? If Hills gets her way I am done with the democratic party. They get to vote in the general. The local voters need to remove the current party officials and install new ones.
Posted by: Louis | Feb 16, 2008 3:29:59 PM
I haven't seen Obama supporters blaming Clinton for the mess with Florida and Michigan - at least not any than I've seen Clinton supporters blame Obama.
I agree voters in both states have a right to be upset. I think they ought to look at who exactly caused this to happen. I really don't know it was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't people connected to either campaign.
Posted by: Paul | Feb 16, 2008 3:30:06 PM
REMEMBER DADE COUNTY FLORIDA in 2000
What have we learned? Nothing!!!!
If there had been a re-vote in Florida Al Gore might be president today and there might not be am Iraq war.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH A RE-VOTE?
If something is broken, then fix it, I don't think any of the voters would complain. They ttok the time out once to have theit voices heard and they would do it again.
Either certify the existing vote in Florida and Michigan or hold new contests. It's not that hard, if the Democrats want what right and what's fair. Any disenfrachised votes is simply UNAMERICAN and wrong.
Posted by: JJ | Feb 16, 2008 3:31:34 PM
She sure is a scrapper - I kind of like that! I have started to notice that he whines a lot.
Posted by: ges | Feb 16, 2008 3:31:41 PM
Paul She might net 5-10 delegates.
Hawaii has only 20, so they will probably split.. And Wisconsin has 74, will still be split about 50/50
Hillary is about 136 pledged delegated behind, not counting supers. She is hoping to make up ground by winning Ohio, Texas, and PA by good margins, plus she should win Puerto Rico and Rhode Island, and be competitive in Kentucky and Indiana.
So in essence, there is a lot more campaigning left to do.
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | Feb 16, 2008 3:32:26 PM
NOT ONLY THAT, OTHER CANDIDATES KEPT THEIR NAME IN THE MICHIGAN'S BALLOT, LIKE CHRIS DODD, BIDEN, AND KUCINICH. TOO BAD OBAMA AND EDWARDS CHICKEN OUT AND HILLARY WON. THEY EVEN CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE UNCOMMITTED BUT STILL HILLARY PREVAILED. AMERICA IS IN DESPERATE NEED OF A GOOD PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW, TOO MANY FORECLOSURES AND HEADING TO RECESSION. JOHN MCCAIN WILL CHEW OBAMA BIG TIME. WAKE UP!!!
Posted by: SO Independent | Feb 16, 2008 3:32:52 PM
OK Louis, I will give you that argument, they all agreed. Fine. My vote doesn't count.
Of course, did they come to us in this state and ask us permission to negate our votes? No. They did not.
But still those were the rules.
So explain, why did Obama violate the campaign rules in Florida and run 112 comcast cable, Broward County Hollywood Pembroke Pines, Ft. Lauderdale, Sunrise, Oakland Park, Plantation, Boca Raton - - and on and on, 112 ads? I saw daily ads for 2 weeks on CNN (ch. 28, comcast cable, Broward).
How do you explain is right to run those ads in clear violation? Clinton did go to Florida afterwards, at a hotel right down the road from me, but that was AFTER THE ELECTION WAS OVER.
She did get our votes in a HUGE landslide that didn't count.
But Obama absolutely, without hesitation, without being able to slough it off, violated the rules and ran those ads. Period.
That is not fair. That is cheating. That is dishonesty. You cannot excuse that, even if the votes do not count, and never do count.
Michigan is another story. All the names were not on the ballot and I don't see anyway they can count them. It is not fair to the folks whose names were missing. Period.
I would love Hillary to win the nomination but I cannot agree that Michigan was a clear choice for her, though the uncomitted totals still lost by 15% which is not a close election.
Florida on the other hand had a cheater, running ads anyway, and he still got destroyed in the head to head matchup.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | Feb 16, 2008 3:35:55 PM
That's a bunch of bunk, they made every effort to win win win as Cinton always does. Because she lost 8 states is the only reason 'they didn't try hard'. Give me a break. She watches the polls like crazy, that is the ony reason she is in Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio because polls show her ahead. Ever since she's been losing she always wants to look like the victim, the underdog. Well she might be right but we can just leave out that word 'under'.
Posted by: RuthieM | Feb 16, 2008 3:35:59 PM
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama new the rules about Florida and Michigan. Let's stick to the rules, Florida and Michigan should not count!!
Posted by: John Warren | Feb 16, 2008 3:35:59 PM
Actually, Jordan, that isn't correct. I live in Florida and could not, in good conscience, advocate changing the ruling personally knowing how many people didn't vote. It has zero to do with which candidate would be favored and everything to do with considering a primary legitimate only if we hear from all the people who intended to be heard. That Hillary has stooped to such sleazy tactics (and most of the nation has only heard the better half of this story) has cost her supporters here. She doesn't care about that because even she knows Florida ain't happening. It's already been reviewed by a federal judge who upheld the penalty of stripped delegates. Did you know that? She thinks it makes her look like some kind of champion for the people in the press for the voters yet to vote precisely because the rest of the story is not so well known nationally or understood. I got news -- many Floridians know better.
Posted by: SE Croft | Feb 16, 2008 3:36:53 PM
As a resident of Michigan let me tell you that it IS NOT in Obama's best interest to have a re-election. He has angered the voters (almost into a frenzy) with his comments on how we don't count. Let him come back - he'll learn the meaning of a count!!
Posted by: jeff | Feb 16, 2008 3:38:22 PM
Obama is an empty suit with empty rhetoric. We all know that 2/3 of registered democrats support Hillary and at least 30% You Obamacans will jump ship like a bunch of rats to support McCain once she's out. I here allot of you Obamacans saying you will support McCain if Hillary gets in which I think is a disgrace if you really belong to the Democratic party. We don't need you losers in our party. Real Democrats should support either candidate iof they get it.
Posted by: MR | Feb 16, 2008 3:39:05 PM
The Florida primary was moved up by the Republican governor and the largely Republican legislature. They are responsible for moving both primaries.
Progressive DJ Randi Rhoades is one of the few in the media to explain it.
Theie is a legtimate argument for Obama to get the uncommitted in Michigan because no one else is left to use them, and Hillary get hers.
Hillary won Florida by 52% and those voters deserve to be counted.
Posted by: Jee Wilson | Feb 16, 2008 3:40:44 PM
Sorry John, Our constitution says they should count. You know the constitution, the old piece of parchment that out countries freedoms and liberties were built on. I have many relatives and friends in Florida and Michigan who all voted and are all Democrats, and trust me, they are mad as hell, and will sit out the National primary. Is that what the DNC wants? Well, if someone doesn't come up with a fair, and equitable solution, that is exactly what they will get.
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | Feb 16, 2008 3:41:25 PM
The DNC allowed the Republican Party control the Democratic primaries since the Michigan Supreme Court and the Florida Legislature, both Republican, approved the date of both primaries.
While the Republicans punished FL and MI cutting their delegates in half, the DNC went to the extreme measure of eliminating all delegates.
With the DNC counting all the MI and FL delegates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would have similar number of pledged delegates close to 1130 (excluding Super delegates).
The GOP is laughing all the way engineering in part the fight which is alienating Democratic Party voters to the benefit of John McCain in the general election.
Posted by: Angel | Feb 16, 2008 3:41:44 PM
Remember FOLKS as Obama calls Us! Already Starting To Get Emails On Obama Look On youtube under Larry Sinclair.... Or Google his name... If This Was Out There On The Clintons it would be on every Front Page of Every Paper! What's Good for The Goose is Good For The Gander.... This Guy Even Has A lawsuit on Obama? Getting Scary! We need A democrat in the White House But He needs more Scrutiny and vetting!
Posted by: astutevoter | Feb 16, 2008 3:43:05 PM
Can you imagine the elderly standing around in hot rooms in the summer in Florda to do a caucus?
The middle class is taking vacations with kids and don't need the headache of a caucus.
Obama, and I do like him but in 8 years after Hillary has done the hard work of cleaning up the country, needs to not talk out of both sides of his mouth.
What do Ted Kennedy and John Kerry do with their votes? AFter all, Hillary won their state.
Posted by: Jee Wilson | Feb 16, 2008 3:44:29 PM
Jordan - the Constitution says nothing about intramural party events. Primaries aren't elections.
In fact, there would be nothing unconstitutional about returning to the smoke-filled backrooms, and not having any primaries or caucuses at all.
Posted by: Paul | Feb 16, 2008 3:46:51 PM
Oh God,can you imagine if Sinclair had worked on a Clinton while doing drugs!!! '
OMG the world would have stopped turning by now, and she would have been forced out, true story or not.
And if we are going to pretend to be honest here, you have to admit that much.
But you know, it isn't true, yet, if ever. So I guess they do not want to splash it all over. I just can't help but think they wouldn't be able to resist if it was Clinton. It would somehow, 'accidentally' made CNN and FOX and MSNBC and ABC and CBS and PBS and BBC. I mean Obama is a master at hiding inaccuracies, even if by mistake.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | Feb 16, 2008 3:47:58 PM
Please read.
FROM cnn "Ickes voted last year to penalize Michigan and Florida — who moved their primary votes up in violation of party instructions — to seat their delegation at the party’s nominating convention this summer. On Saturday, he said both states’ delegations should be seated, and the results of those contests should stand. Hillary Clinton won the primaries in both Florida and Michigan, where she was the only major Democratic candidate to appear on the ballot".
What a mess are the Clintons and big liars! I don't understand how people still support them!!!
Posted by: Liziman | Feb 16, 2008 3:47:59 PM
You can clearly see now that Clinton's camp is beginning to exploit a variety of her dirty, ruthless, and shameless tricks. Ickes is a good example of that" he voted for stripping of the delegates of Florida and Michigan, and now he ate up his words big time. So does Hillary Clinton!!!!!!!! That's why we really need change and hope. That's also you see the ugly sides of Clintons. I think everything she does now will backfire big time for her eventual and fateful defeat.
Posted by: John Hood | Feb 16, 2008 3:48:08 PM
2009 - I can.
The Obama campaign wanted to run a national ad. They realized it also would air in Florida. They asked the DNC if that would violate the no-campaign pledge. The DNC basically said if the early states were okay with it, the DNC was okay with it.
So the campaign asked the applicable state parties, and none objected.
Posted by: Paul | Feb 16, 2008 3:49:03 PM
What is it you Hillary voters don't understand ? These were the rules, Hillary knew that all along. You can't take the votes when she knew they weren't going to count. Not only that someone from the election board form Florida said that Obamas ads were legal. Don't you people read ? You listen to, to many people that spread lies. Wake up and read about your candidate, not rip on their opponent. Some of the people that voted absentee, said they would have changed their votes to Obama if they would have known what Hillary was pulling.
Posted by: Mollie | Feb 16, 2008 3:50:05 PM
Yes, Obama is a young senator but have you noticed how fast the list of Obamagate items is growing? Ms. Michelle said that he won't run again if his not elected. I'm starting to see why!
Posted by: jas | Feb 16, 2008 3:51:00 PM
We all realize the race for the Democratic nomination is VERY close. Sen. Obama has a bit more than a 100 delegate lead before the Feb. 19 Primaries and he leads in overall Democratic votes cast. The race could get even closer.
Sen. Clinton, in political terms, has "no choice" except to go negative. She is behind and neither candidate can get to the required delegate count to win before the convention. And, she has already begun to go negative in her speeches and commercials. We can expect Sen. Clinton and her surrogates to do what Pres. Clinton did in SC, only more forcefully.
As with all modern American political races, their goal will be to destroy Sen. Obama and his family. It is reasonable to expect some version of "Swiftboat II" done on Sen. Obama.
Should these things occur, I think we can say the Democratic Party handed the "election they couldn't lose" to the Republican Party.
Posted by: LD | Feb 16, 2008 3:53:51 PM
You go Clinton. I'm feeling very very optimistic about Clinton. She's tested, she's proven, she's earned her name on that ballot for President of the U.S. Obama is an orator, not a doer. We need people who have been strong voice in Washington. He's had three years in office and has not effected any change. He is a follower and not a leader.
They are going to be about tied in delegates going into the convention. Then FL and MI, even if they do not count those delegates, is going to go into consideration and with it tied and then you consider FL and MI, that has to push the superdelegates to Clinton. Most of the more influential Democrats are supporting Clinton too, which is great. They will have a lot of persuasion at the convention. Go Hillary.
I'm getting the feeling when they talk about an agreement between the two that Clinton's campaign means putting him on the ticket for Vice President. Anyone else get that impression? I could go for that. He needs to play second fiddle to her to get some experience and know-how under his belt.
Posted by: jasoninpa | Feb 16, 2008 3:54:02 PM
So if Hillary had run ads, there would be no outcry that that was why the beast won, that she cheated and ran ads in a state that was to have no Democratic ads.
I accept your point. I would ask your opinion on what the general perception would be, not knowing about what you have said, what would the general public's opinion be, if Hillary had run ads, and then boasted about winning?
They would be on her like flies on a dead corpse. But there just seems to be an unending litany of excuses afforded Obama that do no apply to anyone else. And it just seems disingenous and a bit unfair, when regarded from a distance.
His ads helped the voters learn about him, as he claimed that they did not know him, and that is why she got so many votes.
Well they had 2 weeks to see unending ads about the Hope and The Dream and The Future. But he still got trounced.
But our votes don't count. :( Sucks, really. Oh well.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | Feb 16, 2008 3:54:13 PM
Ilived in CENTRAL FLORIDA and we knew the rules stated by the democratic party. Our votes shouldnt count.Instead when the time come around for our elected officals to be voted back in office again we should show them the door! They knew the rules and didnt give a dammed. Also OBAMA ads was on national cable{ quite legal and smart}. Sorry HILLIARY is not as smart as she think she is. WHERE IS HILLIARY TAX RETURNS?????? WHERE IS HILLIARY 35 YEARS EXPERIENCE???? The way she manage her campaign I hate to see how she manage this country!
Posted by: ready999 | Feb 16, 2008 3:55:31 PM
If it's MCCAIN vs. Clinton-then MCcain wins becuse of the anti hillary vote.
If it's MCCain vs. Obama....Obama winds because of the young voter.
anymore questions!
Posted by: samy | Feb 16, 2008 3:56:11 PM
Anyone else get the impression by this article that Clinton's camp is thinking Obama for vice president?
Posted by: Jason | Feb 16, 2008 3:56:26 PM
Obama is clearly still an addict. While his drug problems "appear" to be behind him he still has the addiction to cigarettes that he cannot control. Once an addict always an addict.
Posted by: jack | Feb 16, 2008 3:58:49 PM
Nothing clears the cobwebs in the twisted mind of a conservative and sends them on to the polling place like a Clinton.
Posted by: Jack | Feb 16, 2008 3:59:24 PM
Wow!!
I never knew there were so many people with their heads in the sand.
Posted by: Janice | Feb 16, 2008 3:59:46 PM
Janice, it's called a revolt! We're sick of the shallow lies from Obama!
Posted by: jeff | Feb 16, 2008 4:02:03 PM
I would only be favorable towards Michigan and Florida delegates being seated if they hold another primary or caucus. The votes the first time round are not accurate because many knew they wouldnt count and did not bother to vote. I know numerous people in both states who either abstained from voting because it was a waste of time, or because they voted Republican due to assuming their democratic vote wasnt going to count - most of those voted Ron Paul. But the ones who did not vote AT ALL thinking that it was a waste of time - which it was - should be given a second chance if the 'voices of the people' are truly to be heard. Whether the new votes will be in Clinton or Obama's favor, who knows? But neither camp should dispute that this is only fair if they are truly interested in 'the people's voices'.
Seating the delegates without holding another primary or caucus is just flaunting the party regulations and will encourage other states to do the same in the next election, once they see that there is no real penalty.
Obama may have also violated party regulations by airing those ads. I understand why he did that because unlike Clinton, he wasnt well known in that state and needed the election publicity far more than she did. I'm not saying it was right, of course. Merely that I can see why he chose to do so in order to remain competitive - something Clinton should understand since she 'loaned' herself 5 million for the same reason after the Clintons had already spoken out previously against candidates self-funding. I don't agree with what either candidate did but I see where they are coming from.
If another primary or caucus is held, this will give Clinton a chance to also put up advertisements like Obama and they can compete on equal footing.
I am an Obama supporter but I think this is a fair compromise on both sides. It is to Clinton's advantage that she gets to buy advertisement time in Florida - assuming she hasn't spent all her campaign money again already, so Obama won't be the only one who unfairly has airtime. Both will get to campaign in Michigan and Florida. The people will get to meet their candidates, ask questions and make their choice, AND the sincere voters will all come out and vote because they know that this time, their voices will actually be heard, and not just by the candidate who needs them coz they're losing. Clinton will get her wish of having delegates seated. Obama will get his name on the Michigan ballot.
I can't think of a compromise that's more fair. If Michigan and Florida won't hold another primary or caucus, then it's not the DNC's fault that the delegates are not seated. It would not be fair to the rules OR the election process to seat them now either. Not when Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot, one candidate had adverts in Florida when the other didn't, and when voters did not ALL vote because many played by the rules and didn't think it would count.
Posted by: Cat Scratch | Feb 16, 2008 4:03:36 PM
Sammy is far as I'm concerned the youth vote is nothing but a bunch of uniformed people who are voting for Obama because it's just a fad. The media created this plain and simple. The youth vote has been irrelevant for the last five elections
Posted by: MR | Feb 16, 2008 4:03:36 PM
REALITY CHECK -- for all the partisan bickering going on here, let's face it -- there is virtually no difference between these two candidates on any of the issues. They differ on some of the minutae of their health programs, but whatever each of them submits is going to be revised by Congress anyway, basically making their differences meaningless. We Democrats are lucky -- either of thse guys would make a GREAT President. The Repubs are the ones with candidates all over the map, we aren't.
All of the screaming and grandstanding in this campaign over essentially nothing it getting to be ridiculous and may hurt our party. C'mon, not having your specific choice of these two get the nomination isn't the end of America as we know it.
Posted by: LAGuy | Feb 16, 2008 4:04:13 PM
If the Obama camp believes they can win without the superdelegates why have they given so much money to there campaigns?
Posted by: joe | Feb 16, 2008 4:04:22 PM
Yes, Janice we are sick of the lies from the Obama camp, and everyone knows a "revolt" trumps a "movement"...lol
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | Feb 16, 2008 4:04:40 PM
Jeff, there'll be room for you when this is over. Our grassroot movement can't be stopped, so hop on or start donating to McCain.
Posted by: Jack | Feb 16, 2008 4:04:56 PM
Democrats must unite!
All this division is playing into the hands of Karl Rove…no, he didn’t resign from the White House to write books. He slithered back into private life to do what he did for GW. WIN THE WHITE HOUSE. If he could win it for GW, all the easier for McCain. First, you divide the Democrats. Second, get them to nominate the weakest for the slaughter. Please, don’t let this happen. The Republicans want Obama to win. The Rove machine will have the time of its life defining Obama their way. Obama will go into defensive mode and will never get his message out (if he has one). Talk of change WILL NOT get him elected in November! If we unite as a Democratic Party and work together, we could control the White House for the next 16 years. Hillary Clinton – President, Barack Obama – Vice President, John Edwards – Attorney General (even better Supreme Court Judge), Bill Richardson – Secretary of State or Ambassador at large (we need someone to clean up this mess in the Middle East that’s been created by the White House Neocon’s). In eight years Barack will have the experience to be President.
We stand at the crossroads…will we look to the future of America and the future of our party, or do we play into the hands of the Rove machine. You better believe it’s cranking in the background and when it starts spewing forth all its disinformation, half truths, and outright lies we better have the strongest candidate to face it head on.
Posted by: democratsrus | Feb 16, 2008 4:07:06 PM
WAKE UP ALL DEMOCRATS!!! IF CLINTON BECOMES THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE; JOHN MCCAIN IS JUST GOING TO FEEL HER OFF INCH BY INCH. CLINTON IS LIKE A SACRIFICE LAMB TO JOHN MCCAIN. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Posted by: petro moralis | Feb 16, 2008 4:08:42 PM
Jack, I refuse to join a cult so guess I would donate to McCain. Glad that won't be necessary in the end.
Posted by: jeff | Feb 16, 2008 4:10:08 PM
Jeff you mean the McCain movement because real democrats like me know that Obama is being used to get Hillary out and McCain in. Why do think so many Republicans (Obamacans) are supporting Obama?. I know why...once Hillary is out you guys will jump to McCain. If anyone can't see that they are delusional or blind..
Posted by: MR | Feb 16, 2008 4:10:57 PM
You don't get it, democratrus. To most, the Rove machine = the Clinton machine. Same tactics, different party. Our call is above party.
Posted by: Jack | Feb 16, 2008 4:10:57 PM
Good grief, I can't believe what I'm reading. It says, "Clinton’s camp contends that superdelegates should not be swayed by the voters of their districts." So why don't we just call in the old Soviet Politburo, because that is exactly like the system that the Democratic party is allowing to play into this election. Unbelievable!
Posted by: Jim, Green Bay | Feb 16, 2008 4:11:32 PM
Time to rally around Sen Obama. Clinton supporters, it's time to do what's best for the party. She can only get the nominaiton by tearing the party in two at this point. You could cost us the election in nov. IT"S TIME.
Posted by: Dem in Chicago | Feb 16, 2008 4:12:14 PM
If HILLIARY have nothing to hide why dont her so-called supporters press her to release her tax return????? I bet if we seen them we be in for quite a surprise. She would have alot of explaining how she came about such wealth. Instead everything is being hidden. RELEASE YOUR TAX RETURNS HILLIARY!!!!
Posted by: ready999 | Feb 16, 2008 4:12:48 PM
Great news. Hillary is on message while her opponent has never gotten on message. Ad nauseum, he repeats the word, "change", over and over again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. His "one word" simplistic message has failed at this point, and he is frightened to debate. Is this someone we want as the party's nominee? A resounding NO. Send him back to the Senate to gain the necessary experience and try to build a record of accomplishment as Hillary has done.
Posted by: benvictor | Feb 16, 2008 4:15:53 PM
With all due respect RO. I am a supporter of Senator Clinton, and you should respect that, as much as I respect your support for Senator Obama.
Posted by: Jordan Clinton | Feb 16, 2008 4:18:01 PM
How many of you who are demanding that Hillary release her tax records have ACTUALLY READ Obama's? I thought so! Do any of you have a problem with the organizations he gave to as charitable contributions? The great uniter! Yah right.
Posted by: jeff | Feb 16, 2008 4:18:47 PM
Calling a movement that challenges America to live up to it's promise and put an end to the politics of corruption and deception which works to arrange politics to resist change a cult is a bad substitute for thinking.
Hillary Clinton is a part of this politics of resistance. The only experience she represents is the roadblocks to meaningful change; the politics of taking turns; the quest to regain power; the resumption of old alliances. All to the exclusion of ordinary people taking back the government.
We are going to do it this time. Period.
Posted by: Jack | Feb 16, 2008 4:19:06 PM
My god!! It appears that all the Clinton ditto-heads are out in full force today. As an Obama supporter I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination despite the fact that the majority of you guys will be the sorest of losers if Obama prevails. For crissakes folks save your vitriol and rancorous remarks for the general election. These caustic statements about Obama (and vice versa)may be the source of much regret later when president-elect McCain prevails over a fractured Democratic party. A president Hillary or Barack is light-years better than this potential nightmare scenario. So folks, lets keep the discourse clean, substantive and on the high ground. Go Dems '08!!!!
Posted by: Rialb58 | Feb 16, 2008 4:19:24 PM
RO the GOP is in the Obama camp. Where have you been? What the hell do you think an Obamacan is? Wow talk about uniformed. Obamacans are nothing but GOP plants. So you need to rethink what you just said. 2/3 of registered voters support the Hillary and the awesome Clinton yrs. with the best economy ever.
Posted by: MR | Feb 16, 2008 4:21:19 PM
An organization that does not allow the members to question the leader is a cult.
Posted by: jeff | Feb 16, 2008 4:21:32 PM
Here is the bottom line from the clinton-duo:
- We give a zilch about democracy and peoples will as longs we win
- We will use any rovian technique to gain the white house, including racial bating
- We will go to any length, if necessary, to destory the democratic party to secure the nomination
- What we do in our financial dealings etc is non of your business in the democractic party, and thereafter it represents a right wing attack to our privacy! So keep at bay, and of course the pardons are always handy!
- And out motto is fight! Fight till you divide and rule!
Posted by: RO | Feb 16, 2008 4:21:34 PM



