The Credentials Committee: Tough For Clinton (Updated)

So early this summer, the 25 members of the DNC's credential committee will join 161 other members to be selected by the states.

The members do not have to be Convention delegates.

The presidential candidates get to choose them, based on the delegates allocated to them in that particular state primary or caucus.

It's proportional (of course).

So if a state has 4 members, and one candidate wins 50 percent and another candidate wins 50 percent, then each candidate gets 2 members.

What does this mean?

Let's say that ALL 25 of Howard Dean's appointees vote AGAINST seating Florida and Michigan. Let's say that 80 additional members are appointed by Obama and 81 by Clinton. 25 + 80 is more than 81. You can fiddle with the numbers and get to a scenario that might seat the Florida delegates. But it's safe to safe to say that the credential committee option for Sen. Clinton to get Michigan and Florida seated would require her to have won more delegates than she will win.

Updated: I neglected to point out that 20% of the committee is all it takes to file a minority report that will be presented to the full convention, which will duly vote.

BTW: I inadvertently left out one member from an earlier post: M. Allyn Brooks-LaSure

Comments

where are those tax returns, I am sure the credentials committee will be interested.

what are the clintons hiding?

Posted by jay | March 6, 2008 4:42 PM

Let's say that ALL 25 of Howard Dean's appointees vote AGAINST seating Florida and Michigan.

Is there any reason to assume that? Couldn't all 25 of them just as easily vote FOR seating Florida and Michigan????

This post makes no sense.

Posted by Tractarian | March 6, 2008 4:49 PM

But it's safe to safe to say that the credential committee option for Sen. Clinton to get Michigan and Florida seated would require her to have won more delegates than she will win.

Marc: I don't know about you, but I strongly sense the Clinton position ("no" to revotes; "yes" to seating FL/MI) is pure negotiating tactics at this point. They don't really think they have much of a chance at getting this done, but they may as well go into the negotiations with this stance, to better insure they "at least" get their second best option: new primaries (and not caucuses).

Posted by Jasper | March 6, 2008 4:58 PM

Tractarian - Of course Chairman Dean's people will vote against seating Fla. and Mich.! Those two states violated the DNC's rules. The DNC chairman must enforce the DNC's rules -- if Fla. and Mich. get to seat delegates after breaking the DNC's rules, then the DNC rules will never have any teeth.

If you saw Dean on the telly this morning, you'd see he's serious about enforcing the DNC's rules, as he should be. If the DNC doesn't enforce the rules, then why bother going through all that hard work to establish a new primary calendar?

Dean has a lot riding on whether he can control the DNC, and you can bet his people will be loyal to his needs.

Posted by Joe | March 6, 2008 5:01 PM

Marc, you need to understand how the credentials committee works. Any decision they make where at least 20% disagree has a report and a minority report - this guarantees that no matter what there will be both opinions coming out of the committee, which then goes to a vote of the whole convention (at the time). That means that it will be up to all the current delegates at the convention to decide which report to approve, meaning that the credentials committee is meaningless and all that matters is who has the overall delegate lead (and local politics - a florida superdelegate for Obama might still feel pressure to seat his state, for example.)

Posted by Anonymous | March 6, 2008 5:02 PM

Last cycle's CULT LEADER has made a potentially unfixable mess of the DNC in his SHORT, FAT, tenure as it's head. Now the LOOSE WINGNUT former mayor of the city of Vermont is bound to make the path as easy as possible for this cycle's WINGNUT CULT LEADER. Plus ce changer, ces't plus la meme chose, as the French like to say.

Time to get Howdy Doody back to repairing lawnmowers or some similar task more in line with his competence level.

Posted by robert ethan | March 6, 2008 5:19 PM

What on earth are the Cultists prattering on over Hillary Clinton's tax records? They will be released on April 5th as THEY WERE ALWAYS SCHEDULED TO BE. Will they reveal some awful secret like the fact that Hillary is a very wealth person who made a lot of money last year? Probably. Wow! Who would have expected that?

On the other hand, I don't think she offered POLITICAL FAVORS TO INTERNATIONAL ARAB CRIMINALS like Auchi, Rezko, Ata, and Auschemere in EXCHANGE FOR HELP BUYING HER HOME.

Such a flimsy pathetic smoke bomb to distract attention from the REAL ISSUES.

Posted by robert ethan | March 6, 2008 5:49 PM

"(and local politics - a florida superdelegate for Obama might still feel pressure to seat his state, for example.)"

Anonymous: Thanks for bringing up the fact that the whole convention (of seated delegates) will probably end up voting on this issue. That was what I had heard as well.

But I think that at least some of the Mich & Fla. superdelegates will be sitting that vote out; it's my impression that they're also barred unless and until the delegations are seated. Anybody have the facts on that?

Posted by retr2327 | March 6, 2008 5:52 PM

Beware of the Clintons -- they will use everything in their machine to steal this election from Obama!

Posted by James | March 6, 2008 6:04 PM

robert ethan,

In all of the reporting on Obama and Rezko, they go to great lengths to say that there's no evidence of any quid pro quo. You can't say the same thing about the Clintons and the Marc Rich pardon (Denise dropped loot on the Clinton Foundation to get that done!)

So I'm betting there are a host of other shady financial transactions that the Clintons would rather not come up, unless they can blame the VRWC for making hay out of it. I mean, c'mon, it's not like getting cozy with Kazakh dictators is the same as selling passes to the Lincoln bedroom, right?

The REAL ISSUE here is that while Obama could have handled the Rezko stuff better, we KNOW the Clintons have an accountant who's filed their taxes every year since they left the White House! So why can't s/he just xerox what's already been filed and produce them so we can all move on? Does he need some change for the copy machine?

Posted by DSG | March 6, 2008 6:06 PM

The FL and MI super delegates will not be seated if their states' pledged delegates aren't seated. So they wouldn't get to vote on the seating issue.

It was my understanding that only pledged delegates get to vote on rules issues. Does anyone know if this is true?

Posted by Chuchundra | March 6, 2008 6:08 PM

DSG - Obama is up to his oversized ears with the RAMPANT POLITICAL CORRUPTION ENDEMIC TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO. Not to mention the local ARAB AMERICAN POLITICAL TERROR CELL that has manipulated the landscape there over the past 15-20 years since Obama arrived on the scene.

Nadhmi Auchi, the individual whose money HELPED FINANCE OBAMA'S HOME PURCHASE has a long and murky history of buying political favors and manipulating government policy stretching back over 30 years to the time when he was a co-conspirator with SADDAM HUSSEIN in an Iraqi assasination attempt on the former head of that country.

Auchi is so distrusted by the American government he is persona non grata in the U.S. of A. He is also a fugitive from justice in France where he has been convicted of similar influence peddling operations.

One of Rezko's co-defendants, and another fugitive from international justice, Ahmed Auschemere (sp?), was given what amounted to diplomatic immunity in escaping prison in Iraq and relocating to CHICAGO SOUTH SIDE at around the time Rezko/Auchi were giving their wink, wink, nod, nod, help to Obama in Chicago.

Posted by robert ethan | March 6, 2008 6:32 PM

can we please remove these insane and insulting robert ethan comments. seriously.

they aren't even remotely helpful or factual.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | March 6, 2008 6:39 PM

robert ethan,

First, why do you use CAPS throughout your poorly reasoned posts but not when spelling your name?

Second, while not denying Chicago's history of political corruption (I live in NJ and know all about machines and corrupt pols!), what exactly are you alleging Obama's done in exchange for the money you allege he's taken to buy his family's home?

I see a lot of smoke in your posts, but no (Chicago) fire! Please do tell... ;-)

Posted by DSG | March 6, 2008 6:41 PM

Jasper, The earlier Clinton demand that the January primaries must be recognized was not just a bargaining position. It was an effort to prepare the ethical ground for its eventuality, based on the (false) assumption that she would gallop into Denver with enough delegates to force it to happen, through the process Marc described.

This door now being closed to them by almost certain Obama control at the convention, do-overs are looking more attractive to Clinton (and her supporters who control the Michigan and Florida parties) than certain defeat.

Posted by Paul in Michigan | March 6, 2008 6:42 PM

Well who cares? I mean, even if they don't seat FL and MI, the Superdels will still come in and could quite legitimately override Obama's fairly small 100 pledged delegate lead at that point to make Clinton the nominee.

Superdels are seriously going to side with Obama even though Clinton has beaten him in every large state (except IL), and is fully vetted? I just don't understand the reasoning.

Posted by JST | March 6, 2008 6:49 PM

JST: ha..ha..ha...Hillary is the candidate not fully vetted. Where are her tax returns? What about those big money contributions to the Clinton library? What do these donors expect in return?

Since Bill left the White House, neither he nor she has been a saint. Who knows what scandals await?

Posted by cm | March 6, 2008 7:05 PM

Now Betty in Baltimore, that would be censorship. I mean, without re, how else would we know how the wingnuts feel about Barack?

Posted by DSG | March 6, 2008 7:13 PM

Hey, Hillary...where are those tax returns? What are you hiding? We should all ask this every day...everywhere...at work...at school...

What controversial foreign interests have been bankrolling you and Bill for these past few years? Middle Eastern oil money? Chinese interests?

Hillary wants us dependent on Middle Eastern oil because it puts so much money into her pockets.

Posted by cm | March 6, 2008 7:21 PM

cm,

They're not Chinese interests! They're Chinese dishwashers! Didn't you read the story?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,1976718,full.story

Posted by DSG | March 6, 2008 7:28 PM

You're right DSG. My bad. I definitely don't want to be called a censor. Maybe we can just limit Wingnuts to one comment per post?

But if I see MORE of ROBERT'S RANDOM capitalization I MAY JUST go CRAZY. He seems to think that saying REZKO and ARAB means we should all RUN for the HILLS.

I just don't see any substantive Obama misbehavior on the Rezko matter, Robert E. Keep trying though. Maybe ask the Keating 5 for some help.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | March 6, 2008 7:33 PM

I guess that your point is that it is hopeless for Hillary. I guess she should just take her voters and go away. I guess that would make Howard happy.

Posted by Honora | March 6, 2008 7:35 PM

If Hillary cared about her party, she would not have gone so negative on Obama. But now that she has, all gloves are off.

Let's fully vet Hillary...for starters, where are her tax returns? And what about those big donors to the Clinton library? They didn't give those millions out of gratitude to Bill, they gave them expecting favors from Hillary.

As for her national security experience, she has none. She lies trying to exaggerate her resume, like a college kid with bad grades.

She would not go into Pakistan to get bin Laden, and ridiculed Obama for saying he would.

She got us bogged down in Iraq, so we couldn't pursue the people responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Now thanks to Hillary our military is bogged down in Iraq, so it's harder to take on our enemies elsewhere.

Thanks to Hillary we are less safe.

Posted by com | March 6, 2008 7:40 PM

It's getting very hard to see a way that HRC could win the nomination in a way that doesn't rupture the Democratic Party. Given the way the numbers add up at the moment, it requires a lot of creative math and a vivid imagination to construct a scenario where she wins.

It's not impossible that she could somehow take the prize-- but not without significant collateral damage. When the superdelegates make their final calculation, I'm pretty sure that they are going to come to the same conclusion.

Posted by louisiana louie | March 6, 2008 7:45 PM

MSNBC First Read

Clinton's NAFTA-gate?
Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:37 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama
From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro

Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper’s front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama’s:

“Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper’s chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’

“The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.

“Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign.”

Posted by alison | March 6, 2008 7:48 PM

HILLARY CLINTON’S DOUBLE DONORS

LARGEST DONORS TO PRO-CLINTON 527 HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON

BY Josh Israel | March 05, 2008

Five of the six individuals who have given $10,000 or more to the American Leadership Project, a 527 committee formed recently to promote Hillary Clinton, had already given the legal maximum of $4,600 to her presidential campaign, an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity shows.

In its filings with the Federal Election Commission, the American Leadership Project reported receiving 24 contributions totaling $1,161,485 from February 22 to March 3. Of that amount, $1 million came from the American Federal of State, County, and Municipal Employees, a labor union that’s backing Clinton’s candidacy. AFSCME’s political action committee gave Clinton’s presidential committee $4,999 — a dollar short of the legal limit for the primary campaign.

The largest individual donors to the American Leadership Project were Jay Eisenhofer, a lawyer in New York City ($50,000); Stephen Kennedy, the owner of a construction company in Glenwood Springs, Colorado ($25,000); Michele Dunkerley, a lawyer in Mercer Island, Washington ($20,000); Paul Goldenberg, the founder of the California-based Paul’s TV chain and self-described “King of Big Screens” ($15,000); Monica Graham of East Hampton, New York ($10,000); and William Titelman, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. ($10,000). All but Kennedy had previously “maxed out” to Clinton’s presidential campaign.

There are no limits on contributions to 527 organizations.

According to the filings, published on The Politico’s website, ALP spent more than $863,000 on pro-Clinton television ads.

Posted by alisonw | March 6, 2008 8:00 PM

Hi, my name is robert ethan and I'm an IGNORAMOUS. I randomly make note of my most SILLY AND UNINFORMED points by the overuse of capitalization. If I had an IQ ABOVE ZERO, I would stop this nonsense. If my random stupidity offends you, I must confess IT OFFENDS ME TOO. There's just no cure for my SENSELESS IDIOCY. My bad.

Posted by robert ethan | March 6, 2008 8:45 PM

Maybe robert ethan will enjoy reading this...

The 'other' Rezko scandal

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.

Hat Tip Andrew Sullivan, via dKos

Posted by Mark | March 6, 2008 9:29 PM

Obama will not win the Presidency if he cant win the BIG SWING STATES like Ohio and Florida - which Clinton and McCain won. And Pennsylvania - which Clinton and McCain will win.

If we want a Democratic president, we want Clinton to run against McCain. That is the only choice.

Obama can be VP

Posted by FJ Stratford | March 6, 2008 9:40 PM

Obama advertised in Florida.

There's no way to tell how MI and FL will vote if they re-vote. The Democratic party should never have taken away the voice of two of the nation's states. How can a party claim to be Democratic if it won't hear the people? I don't think it's right to change the rules after the game has begun; however, I think the Democratic party was foolish prior to the primary season beginning.

No one will be able to win without causing hard feelings if not all out rupture -- neither Obama nor Clinton. To think that the superdelegates' handing this to Clinton over Obama will be the only way that party tears form is foolish. I have little respect for the Democratic party as it is.

Posted by Kevin | March 6, 2008 10:13 PM

FJ Stratford:

That argument was lame from the get go but now it's just tiring. Check out the latest surveyusa electoral maps for the general. Not only is Obama Instead of flaunting your ignorance, can't you inform yourself just a little? Seriously, just a little?

Posted by Joseph | March 7, 2008 12:24 AM

Correction for my comment above .... Not only does Obama beat McCain by a larger margin than Hillary, but there are a whole bunch of states that are competitive with Obama as the nominee but solid red when McCain is running against Hillary.

Posted by Joseph | March 7, 2008 12:29 AM

ROBERT ETHAN is not a man who GIVES SEXUAL FAVORS TO LITTLE BOYS

Posted by Joey | March 7, 2008 12:48 AM

FJ Stratford = troll

Posted by Joey | March 7, 2008 12:50 AM

She signed the agreement not to seat those 2 states. A legally binding contract. I also see Hillary Rove Clinton has gone to the dark side. I had hoped this campaign would stay more positive and as a Democrat I cannot support her in a general election. I am tired of supporting candidates that tear people down.

Posted by JWE | March 7, 2008 7:49 AM

The thing is, Obama has already won. It's pretty clear. All Clinton's trying to do at this point is save face. She can still get the nomination, but she can't "win it well," as James Fallows puts it. Which means she's lost.

Posted by alex | March 7, 2008 9:57 AM

Voter nullification.

There's little chance that Hillary can win the nomination without some form of voter nullification by superdelegates. Its is most likely that she will lose all of states, delegates, and popular votes.

Here only way to overcome that is by having the superdelegates nullify the popular voting process, and most of us honest, little people know that that's bad.

Posted by Paulc | March 7, 2008 11:06 AM

Here is the original post from Slate: http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/06/brokering-the-brokered.aspx

Posted by Paulc | March 7, 2008 12:21 PM

Members are appointed to the credentials committee based on the primaries and the caucuses, with the larger states being slightly overrepresented. Since Hill has won virtually all of the larger states, she will be overrepresented on the credentials committee - potentially with the majority. The three chairs of the committee are former Clinton appointees. Hill might end up with the majority and the majority report might reflect her wishes.

Marc needs to check into her advantage re over-representation of the larger states, and also needs to check into how much power the chairs wield to sway the outcome.

Posted by sbj | March 7, 2008 8:54 PM

1. Regardless of whether a minority report (very likely) comes out of the credentials committee, the whole convention still needs to approve the majority report. If they don't, the committee would just go back to work.

2. The credentials committee has 25 PLEO votes (chosen by Dean/DNC) and 144 votes allocated among the states (excludes 14 votes allocated to Florida and Michigan). Each state chooses its members based on preference poll results, with members allocated to candidates proportionally.

3. Going through state by state, I estimate that of the 144 votes allocated to states, Obama controls 66.5 and Clinton controls 52.25, with 25.25 votes yet to be decided.

4. So assuming delegates and members vote on credentials according to their presidential preferences, the whole credentials issue becomes somewhat moot. If the convention votes to seat the FL and MI delegates, then Clinton didn't need the FL and MI delegates anyway, and would probably win without them.

5. As a case in point, McGovern won the Illinois and California credentials fights in 1972, even though the decisions were somewhat at odds with each other, specifically because he controlled a majority of delegates and committee members due to his success in the primaries and caucuses.

Posted by Jeremy | March 8, 2008 4:35 AM

Obama will not win the Presidency if he cant win the BIG SWING STATES like Ohio and Florida - which Clinton and McCain won. And Pennsylvania - which Clinton and McCain will win.

If we want a Democratic president, we want Clinton to run against McCain. That is the only choice.

Obama can be VP

Posted by FJ Stratford

1)Let's get one thing clear! The seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates as they are is a no go. Howard Dean has made it very clear Mi and Fl have to play by the rules and that means they have to pull off a mulligan primary/caucus by June 10th. The math of the logistics of getting that accomplished is just this side of impossible. This isn't a game of stickball in the schoolyard where you make up the rules as you go, or where you get to have a do-over if something didn’t come out like expected...

2) Florida is most likely not going to go blue make no mistake about that! To say the people of Florida are rather upset with the DNC is at best an understatement. This is going to be reflected in the fall no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. Charlie Crist is on McCain’s short list for VP for good reason. He’s very popular with the people of Florida. The “Hispanic vote” that is part of Senator Clinton’s core support block is just this side of non-existent in Florida. Lots of Hispanics yes but they’re by and large either Cuban refugees or the families of Cuban refugees almost all are staunch Republicans.

3) Ohio now you’re making me laugh Senator McCain would toss little old I’m a victim Clinton into a sausage grinder. Then proceed to serve her up for breakfast on Nafta… Her own statements about it can be turned against her with ease.

4)I honestly hope Billary does get the Democratic nomination not because I’m some right wing nut bag who thinks she’ll lose to McCain. Which she would for what it’s worth my politics are further to the left than most liberals but that’s another subject. The reason why Hillary “Ramrod” Clinton can’t win is really very simple she can’t play her pseudo experience cards against someone who has real and genuine experience. Senator McCain has been on most of the Senate committees he’s on longer than Senator Clinton has been a Senator.

5) Obama would be a blasted fool to get any place near the Clinton's and their brand of Slime ball politics… He can keep his hands clean run a straight and honest campaign against honest opponents in 2012. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton will finish out her term as Jr. Senator from New York and sink into obscurity as the most hated woman in America.

Posted by SC Rose | March 9, 2008 4:09 PM

You better keep updating. The Michigan and Florida delegations get to sit on the credentials committee. The only restriction is that Michigan cannot vote on the Florida challenge and vice versa. Hillary will get her proportionate share of the Florida delegation on credentials and Obama will get none of the Michigan committee members because he wasn't on the ballot. As to the Dean appointments, there's no reason to suspect they will be Obama loyalists. Indeed the co-chairs all have Clinton connections. Bottom line, there will be a majority and minority report and the convention must take that up as the first order of business by rule. The vote on that will be a proxy for the vote of the convention on the candidates themselves.

Posted by lawpol | May 3, 2008 11:48 AM