Williams Cables Plouffe: Let's Talk About MI and FL

Arlington Center has tapped out a message over the transatlantic cable to Chicago Center, and fortunately for us, it's in the clear. Maggie Williams, the Arlington Rezident , wants to pressure the Chicago Rezident, David Plouffe, to say something about Obama's position vis-a-vis a Florida or Michigan re-vote.

To the extent that both sides hold out hope that Howard Dean will allow some sort of compromise, it just does not seem as if either side knows Howard Dean. He has said that there are only two options: that the delegations take their fight to credentials committee, or that they attempt to vote again, provided that said vote is approved by the DNC's rules and bylaws committee. There are no other alternatives. He did not say: "There are no other alternatives, except for the other other alternative, which is some extra-juridical solution that involves a backroom deal."

On to the cable:

March 12, 2008

David Plouffe

P.O. Box 8102

Obama for America
Chicago, Illinois 60680

Dear David:

The 2008 primary campaign has been a spirited contest that has resulted in record voter turnout. Both of our candidates can proudly boast of bringing new people into the process and energizing our Democratic Party.

With the campaign now entering the final phase of the nominating contest, it is vital that both of our campaigns come together to ensure that the delegations from Florida and Michigan be seated to reflect the will of the voters.

In Florida and Michigan, nearly 2.5 million Americans made their voices heard and participated in primary elections. We think the results of those primaries were fair and should be honored.

Over the last few weeks, there has been much discussion about how to ensure that the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated. We think there are two options: Either honor the results or hold new primary elections.

To that end, we are in active consultation with all of our supporters in Florida, including Members of Congress. In Michigan, we are in active consultation with the committee appointed by Governor Granholm.

We hope that your campaign will join us in our efforts to ensure that these votes are counted.


Sincerely,

Maggie Williams
Campaign Manager

###

Comments

Excuse me, how does "honor the results" which were invalidated by DNC rules do anything for the rule of law?

This is a real taste of how a Rodham administration will govern: rules are for little (or black) people.

HRH Rodham can change the rules after the fact to suit her.

Maggie Williams clearly have the support of Rodham.

Rodham has also made the same demand herself.

So what we have is a Presidential candidate who is already abusing her power flagrantly and don't seem to give a damn.

That is how she is going to govern.

God help us if she becomes President and Congress is also in the hands of the Democrats with a filibuster proof majority in Senate.

It will be worst than the first term of GW.

Posted by D | March 12, 2008 8:58 AM

The voters didn't agree to the primary date, our leaders of the state did. Punish the right people (the leaders) not the voters. We shouldn't be punished for something we didn't do.
It' be like sending you & your co-workers to prison for something your boss did, while he gets away with it.
Count my original vote! (No Revote)

Posted by Gene in FL | March 12, 2008 9:06 AM

I am speechless. They believe that the results of the primaries were "fair"? When, in one of the states, your opponents' names weren't even on the ballot? That's the kind of reasoning Saddam Hussein used to use, when he "won" Iraqi elections with an alleged 95% of the vote.

Posted by Dan | March 12, 2008 9:10 AM

"We think the results of those primaries were fair and should be honored." Well, that pretty much says it all right there. Wow.


Anyway, it's worth noting that in this entire primary season, with 40+ states having held contests, only 4 had a higher turnout of Republicans than Democrats: Arizona (McCain's home state), Utah (ostensibly the high Mormon population voting for Romney), Michigan, and Florida. It is clear, therefore, that the "beauty contest" nature of these elections affected turnout.


One more time: "We think the results of those primaries were fair and should be honored."


Finally, what kind of precedent does it set if MI and FL are allowed do-overs? The whole point of the punishment was to prevent bigger states from taking over the early primaries. California followed the rules. New York followed the rules. Illinois followed the rules. I'm sure they all would have loved having January primaries. Giving in to MI and FL now will cause chaos in 2016 (or 2012) in the next meaningful Dem primary, as every state will move their primary (Thanksgiving 2011, anyone?) with no fear of meaningful penalty.

Posted by south side | March 12, 2008 9:12 AM

I guess that, once you decide to unhook yourself from reality, anything is possible. At this point, we cann't expect anything remotely resembling honesty from the Clinton campaign, so it is now up to outsiders to call this out for what it is: shameless cheating.

Clinton's contempt for the spirit of the law really does recall Bush. I never would have said it two months ago, but now it's depressingly obvious.

Posted by alex | March 12, 2008 9:17 AM

To: Maggie Williams
From: David Plouffe

Dear Maggie:

Eat it. Take your race-baiting, fear-mongering, low-life, Republican campaign and crawl back under the rock you came from.

We win. You lose.

All the best,

David

Posted by SDinIA | March 12, 2008 9:20 AM

Why is the obama camp afraid of a revote? Why does the obama camp want to disenfranchise millions of dem voters? Why won't the "liberal media" press obama on that? So many questions...

Posted by hadenough | March 12, 2008 9:21 AM

hadenough

Don't kid yourself. If Hillary weren't the repulsive candidate she is and were actually leading right now and it was Obama who won in Florida, she'd have this potential re-vote idea stamped out faster than Bill Clinton can say "Jesse Jackson."

Hillary's concern isn't about the potential disenfranchisement of voters in Florida. Hillary's concern is about Hillary.

Posted by SDinIA | March 12, 2008 9:25 AM

Maggie Williams need to resign immediately for that letter.

If Hillary do not repudiate the letter, especially the "primaries were fair and results should be honored" part, then it is clear.

Hillary is unfit to govern in any capacity including VP. Period.

Unfit to be Senator as well.

Resign, Hillary.

Posted by D | March 12, 2008 9:27 AM

I agree with D
If Hillary does not repudiate the letter, especially the "primaries were fair and results should be honored" part, then it is clear.

Posted by bjd | March 12, 2008 9:36 AM

"hadenough

Don't kid yourself. If Hillary weren't the repulsive candidate she is and were actually leading right now and it was Obama who won in Florida

Posted by SDinIA"

Wow! That kool aid must be good. Despite obama spending over a million dollars in FL and breaking his pledge not run commercials in FL and the "liberal medias" wall-to-wall coverage of the kennedy endorsement the day before the FL prinary obama lost. Now obama would rather play politics than have dems votes counted. Get over it. Plenty of audacity but new kinda politics not so much.

Why can't obama close the deal? If as you say Hillary is "repulsive candidate she is" why can’t obama close the deal?

Posted by hadenough | March 12, 2008 9:43 AM

We're going to see this get a lot, lot uglier. Clinton waiving the 'We want to be fair, count everyone!' card, like they are waving flags in a parade.

I can understand Florida's sentiment (anyone in Michigan that doesn't think the fact that Obama not on the ballot constitutes a 'fair' primary is smoking large amounts of crack)...but the people of Florida need to realize that it's NOT a Constitutional right to have your vote counted in the Primaries. It's not. It's the Democratic Party's process, they call the shots.

If you feel disenfranchised (i.e. you are a Hillary supporter), voice it in November by voting however you please. Or, just shut the hell up, realize that your Party leaders screwed you guys out of having a say in the process, and get behind the result of who the rest of the country picked, based on the rules that were set forth.

Pelosi, Dean, Gore...where are you? We've got to have someone step in and solve this nonsense.

Posted by Ron Hussein | March 12, 2008 9:57 AM

The Clinton campaign cannot even write a memo without contradicting themselves!

First Maggie the Perjurer writes:"We think the results of those primaries were fair and should be honored."

But THEN she writes: "Either honor the results or hold new primary elections."

But what is the justification for holding new primaries if, according to M to the P, the original results were "fair and should be honored"?

Posted by wj | March 12, 2008 10:15 AM

Obama supporters need to calm down.
There are real arguments on all sides.
DNC's position has some logic. Michigan's and Florida's has some logic as well.
Hillary and Obama each have a position in this dispute that makes some sense.
The rest of us have opinions but it is silly for us to pretend that this dilemma doesn't have a lot of moving parts that make it tricky to resolve.

Posted by Michael C. | March 12, 2008 10:28 AM

I wonder what Geraldine Ferraro thinks of Maggie Williams.

Posted by alex | March 12, 2008 10:39 AM

Dear Maggie,

You're losing. Bug off.

xoxox

Posted by David | March 12, 2008 11:05 AM

That's the kind of reasoning Saddam Hussein used to use, when he "won" Iraqi elections with an alleged 95% of the vote.

Which, hilarious, Hillary couldn't even manage when she was running alone against Mike Gravel. I remember arguing at the time that her inability to break 60% was a sign of cracks in the facade of inevitability. I'd say it looks like I was right.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 12, 2008 11:08 AM

Why can't obama close the deal? If as you say Hillary is "repulsive candidate she is" why can’t obama close the deal?

Can you show me a way that Clinton can end up at the convention with more delegates, pledged or otherwise?

Posted by justinb | March 12, 2008 11:35 AM

Well, I think MI and FL are important, even as an Obama supporter. So for those of you who have short memories, lets recap the issue.

Both states tried to muscle out the NH and IA primary and caucus. There was so much uncertainty last Nov/Dec as to when the NH and IA go on. MI and FL moved their primaries and the DNC punished them when FL and MI moved. This caused NH and IA to move. Obama won IA and it looked as if Clinton would lose NH and Bill Clinton complained loudly about the fact that there was not enough time to respond. Obama was perceived as the winner in NH, but he lost to Clinton.

Before both the IA caucus and NH primary, the Clinton campaign supported the DNC's sanctions in order to appeal to voters in those states. After she needed FL and MI, she began to advocate for FL and MI voters ('caucuses were undemocratic', 'we can't afford to disinfranchise voters', etc.)

Then Obama won a landslide in SC, tied in NV. That made FL and MI critical to HRC (optics?) even though she still believed that she would win the nomination on 2/5. Then came the Potemkin Village acceptance speech in FL which was the first BS tactic from the HRC campaign (excluding Bill's "I was against the Iraq war from the beginning" in which he was clueless about the new dynamic in the political world. YouTube is the ultimate BS equalizer.)

Since 2/5, where Obama essentially beat Clinton in delegates, Clinton's campaign was in shambles and out of money. In order to regain her momentum, she started to demand that FL and MI be seated in the hope of matching Obama's delegate lead.

As Clinton's losses continued to pile up, her only hope is that MI and FL find a way to count. That has been her stance since 2/5. She needs to add two more primaries because she was 'running out of road' to win the nomination.

Obama has out-foxed her at every turn. This infuriates the Clinton campaign, but no matter, its Obama (as the leader) who has the ball in his court.

I believe that the Clinton campaign has a valid argument in that FL and MI are needed in the general election. Obama has to be perceived to be 'fair' but he doesn't have to roll over for Hillary. That is why this memo from Maggie Williams is laughable.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 12, 2008 11:48 AM

Well, I think MI and FL are important, even as an Obama supporter. So for those of you who have short memories, lets recap the issue.

Both states tried to muscle out the NH and IA primary and caucus. There was so much uncertainty last Nov/Dec as to when the NH and IA go on. MI and FL moved their primaries and the DNC punished them when FL and MI moved. This caused NH and IA to move. Obama won IA and it looked as if Clinton would lose NH and Bill Clinton complained loudly about the fact that there was not enough time to respond. Obama was perceived as the winner in NH, but he lost to Clinton.

Before both the IA caucus and NH primary, the Clinton campaign supported the DNC's sanctions in order to appeal to voters in those states. After she needed FL and MI, she began to advocate for FL and MI voters ('caucuses were undemocratic', 'we can't afford to disinfranchise voters', etc.)

Then Obama won a landslide in SC, tied in NV. That made FL and MI critical to HRC (optics?) even though she still believed that she would win the nomination on 2/5. Then came the Potemkin Village acceptance speech in FL which was the first BS tactic from the HRC campaign (excluding Bill's "I was against the Iraq war from the beginning" in which he was clueless about the new dynamic in the political world. YouTube is the ultimate BS equalizer.)

Since 2/5, where Obama essentially beat Clinton in delegates, Clinton's campaign was in shambles and out of money. In order to regain her momentum, she started to demand that FL and MI be seated in the hope of matching Obama's delegate lead.

As Clinton's losses continued to pile up, her only hope is that MI and FL find a way to count. That has been her stance since 2/5. She needs to add two more primaries because she was 'running out of road' to win the nomination.

Obama has out-foxed her at every turn. This infuriates the Clinton campaign, but no matter, its Obama (as the leader) who has the ball in his court.

I believe that the Clinton campaign has a valid argument in that FL and MI are needed in the general election. Obama has to be perceived to be 'fair' but he doesn't have to roll over for Hillary. That is why this memo from Maggie Williams is laughable.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 12, 2008 11:48 AM

How can Clinton supporters excuse Bill and Hillary for claiming that Michigan was fair? Unthinking voters that refuse to hold politicians accountable for unsavory and scandalous actions only encourage corruption. Is there anything about that concept that you fail to understand?

Posted by hillaryis44 | March 12, 2008 1:30 PM

Why is everyone so negative about counting the votes in FL? Didn't it seem from the onset that the decision would be challenged at some point? If the numbers were different and Hillary was in the lead these 2 states would still need to be counted because the Dem party, not the voters, made the decision to break the rules.
If Obama was back on delegates and he originally won in FL (he did run ads in FL and chose to defy the party rules at that time), is Obama so different that he would not ask for the votes in that state? Wouldn't he "hope" for a "change" in current politics and ask for the counting of votes already made? If anything, the votes should be counted for FL, and MI should receive a nod to revote since Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot there, this time in accordance with the party rules. (Could it be that Obama knew Hillary had the edge here?)
It should be clear that Obama is a politician and is seeking the presidency just as fervently as Hillary.

Posted by Deborah | March 12, 2008 2:03 PM