HRC: Seat Michigan And Florida Delegates

Texas Monthly's Evan Smith interviewed HRC today and they had an extended exchange about Florida and Michigan.

Smith: "... The talk is that you agreed not to seat the delegation."

HRC: "That’s not the case at all. I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that. I think it’s important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC’s decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat."

Smith: "So your intention is to press this issue?"

HRC: "Yes, it is. Yes, it is. It’s in large measure because both the voters and elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this. Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, early on in the process actually sued because he thinks it’s absurd on its face that 1.7 million Democrats who eventually voted would basically be disregarded, and I agree with him about that."

Reader J.L points out, though, that the "driver" of the votes that day might have been the state property tax amendment, which drew 500K more votes than the presidential primary combined.

Comments

every time i get close to NOT utterly despising her...

Posted by rob! | February 22, 2008 3:23 PM

How does Hillary square this with her pledge not to seek to have the Florida and Michigan delegates seated? Without reconciling these statements with that, it's difficult for me to understand how her opponent or the American people can take her at her word.

Plus, if she feels so strongly about the rights of the Florida and Michigan state parties to schedule their primaries when they wish, she missed her chance to speak up about this issue when she had a change at affecting the outcome. Doing so now is not exactly a profile in courage.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 22, 2008 3:25 PM

I thought she might have revived some good will last night at the debate, and could possibly have recovered some momentum in Texas and Ohio. But now she's telling the voters in those upcoming states that she wants to find a way to win, no matter how they vote. How can this be smart strategy? Never mind the ethics, isn't this just really stupid?

Posted by jbd | February 22, 2008 3:29 PM

Two things.
1. Her pledge not to campaign or particpate (which to me means having name on ballot) also stated that she would agree to all DNC rules relevant to those primaries. Those rules included non-seating of delegates pledged to any particular candidate.
2. There is no idea what the outcome would have been if the voters knew that the primaries would have counted.

And, the interesting part of her answer is "I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee."

Not only lowering expectations, but already dismissing the significance of Texas if she loses.

Big mistake.

Posted by John | February 22, 2008 3:29 PM

And, if nothing else, Texans are aware of their own exceptionalism. Funny, I would have thought someone with Hillary's ties to the state (Class of '72 rulz, wooooo!) would realize that. Marginalizing the state a full week and a half before the election.

New campaign slogan: "Puerto Rico: The only state, er, territory, er, commonwealth that actually matters."

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 22, 2008 3:45 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

It seems pretty clear, given HRC's statements above, that she is absolutely dug in on the point of seating those two delegations. Accordingly, we can draw our own conclusions about the future of the Democratic nominating process.

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | February 22, 2008 4:29 PM

Yup. Obama keeps racking up net delegate gains in the remaining contests, and superdelegates continue to flow his way. He obtains the support of a majority of delegates, and ultimately the credentials committee seats the FL and MI slates.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 22, 2008 4:34 PM

Hillary Clinton needs to be stopped, now. She has demonstrated the managerial incompetence she would bring to the Presidency if elected (disastrous campaign, bad choice of advisors, and failure in 1993 with health reform). And she is demonstrating again her destructive impact on the Democratic Party. In 1993 she helped burn down the Democratic Congress by hammering at the health care issue the way she did, and we got Newt Gingrich. Now she is doing even worse. The party leaders need to step in.

Joe

Posted by joe | February 22, 2008 4:40 PM

Darn it, I insist the punditocracy hold her to winning Texas by a big margin as her Alamo--that's what her line was last week. Not knowing anything about the Texas primary system is no excuse.

Posted by Deborah | February 22, 2008 5:25 PM

Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that.

It's true that she wasn't at the Capital Hilton when the Rule & By-Laws Committee voted. But her surrogates, led by Harold Ickes, were parties to it. Does anyone actually think the Clinton campaign didn't make its preferences known to RBC members, or that the RBC's decision went against those preferences?

Posted by KH | February 22, 2008 5:36 PM

THere goes that "graceful concession" theory about last night's debate. ha ha ha!

I am in awe of her logic, too: "If they had been influenced by the DNC . . . they would have stayed home." Well, who says they didn't? How on earth can she show that everyone who cared about the outcome went and voted that day? And who says they weren't also influenced by everyone on every news show, who said it was a beauty contest?

She is an asswipe. She just is.

Posted by Phoebe | February 22, 2008 7:31 PM

Seriously, language like this today and can anyone remotely consider her *moment* last night was anything but an exaggerated New Hampshire cry?

Good grief...if folks fall for last night I will simply give up.

The only thing left to do is win all the remaining states by a 30%+ margin so the outcome will be indisputable.

Get to work Obama folks! There's something each of us can do...most of it free.

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unity, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | February 23, 2008 1:19 AM

Does anyone realy think the the DNC's decision on MI and FL delegates will have any measurable effect on the fall election? Even in this extraordinary year, the percentages who turn out for primaries are still quite small. The percentage who understand this controversy is even smaller. Sure, the time that the candidates would have spent in those states would have been useful, but otherwise, I just don't see it. Inside baseball.

Posted by dcBill | February 23, 2008 8:48 AM

Does anyone realy think the the DNC's decision on MI and FL delegates will have any measurable effect on the fall election? Even in this extraordinary year, the percentages who turn out for primaries are still quite small. The percentage who understand this controversy is even smaller. Sure, the time that the candidates would have spent in those states would have been useful, but otherwise, I just don't see it. Inside baseball.

Posted by dcBill | February 23, 2008 8:48 AM

Every time HRC or anyone on her campaign speaks of or takes action toward seating the FL and MI delegates, I pledge to make a donation to the Obama campaign.

Posted by boomer | February 23, 2008 2:05 PM

Remember the Democrat rallying cry duing the 2000 contested election in Florida? "Let the people decide!" -- even if it meant changing the rules of the election after the fact.

At least Clinton is being true to form, i.e. who cares about the rule of law, it's whether we win is what matters.

Posted by ProfNickD | February 23, 2008 6:58 PM

Hey folks,

I live in Florida, when the day came for us to vote, I voted. I did not have a choice of the day, but I did have the RIGHT TO VOTE! That is the American way. For that reason alone, MI and FL's votes and delegates should count.

Get over it Obama folks. He pulled a major Obama blunder in MI that was very unpresidential. While they agreed not to campaign, they didn't have to take their name off the ballot. Obama CHOSE to take his name off the ballot. He turned his back on the good folks of that state! How many more bad judgments will he make due to inexperience?

Now he left his name on the FL ballot. AND, AND, he campaigned here. I know, I saw his ad's on TV all the way through election day. So he broke his signed agreement "not to campaign here. Another Obama blunder.

I saw no "Obama manna from heaven" coming from him in the Texas debate. I saw a politically inexperienced man will a cliche, rhetoric ridden dialogue who at times when he had no real response would throw out a Kennedy quote.

Posted by Anna | February 24, 2008 9:11 AM

I was for Hillary until she decided to push the issue for MI delegates. MI broke the set rules therefore I chose not to vote. Why waste the time when the rule had been set and we knew our vote would not count. I will not vote for a person who feels that rules can be rewritten after citizens made choices based on the rules. I won't vote for her now because of this.

Posted by Jonah Michigan | February 24, 2008 5:44 PM

What has happened to intelligence, reason and Democracy.

People voted. Their votes absolutely should count, every vote should count. If you are against votes counting you are as bad as the people rigging elections in Kenya and Pakistan. The U.S. is supposed to stand for true democracy.

Obama should have known better than to disregard Michigan, that was a mistake no matter which way you look at it. I credit Hillary's intelligence, fairness and experience for understanding the people of Michigan and Florida are voters who's opinions matter.

Posted by Jaclyn | March 6, 2008 11:50 AM

Whoa, Jaclyn. If the votes in Michigan and Florida should count, why did those states elect to break the rules of the party, and hold their elections early? What about all the disenfranchised voters who did not turn out to vote because they knew their votes wouldn't count anyway? Is that really a FAIR election? I think not. HRC's name was the only one on the ballot in Michigan! Now, because she thinks she would gain those delegates, she wants to break the rules and count them! How ethical is THAT? More of HRC's spin game, and changing the rules to suit her campaign. It stinks !!

Posted by Chris Mitchell | March 6, 2008 5:35 PM

HRC pledged to not campaign in Fl or Mi. SHE mad NO pledge to not seat the delegates. Please do your research and get the truth. These are American voters who deserve to have their votes counted. Let's end the silliness.

Posted by Artlavender | March 23, 2008 7:55 PM