Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement this evening:
Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.
We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.
The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.
A Democratic official close to Sen. Carl Levin says: "He is pleased they have made progress over where they were this morning. He is confident that the full delegation will be seated with full voting rights at the convention."
7:16: Some Clinton supporters begin to shout: "McCain, McCain, McCain."
7:15: Michigan compromise motion passes; 19 to 8.
7:05: A senior Michigan Democrat: "We will continue to work until the full delegation is seated but have reason to believe the candidate will restore 100% when picked."
7:04: A spokesperson for Sen. Levin says that he's "going to keep working until Michigan is fully seated with full voting rights at the convention."
7:03: Ickes: "Mrs. Clinton has reserved her right to take this to the credentials committee."
7:02: Ickes: "Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path toward unity."
7:00 pm: Mr. Ickes continues. "Not only will this motion hijack four delegates from Mrs. Clinton, it will take 55 delegates from uncommitted status, which is a recognized presidential status under our constitution and convert them to Barack Obama."
6:58: A senior DNC official says that Sen. Carl Levin is not likely to challenge the Michigan seating.
6:57: Don Fowler, former DNC chairman, and a Clinton supporter, announces his support for the motion. Ickes: "I rise in opposition. I find it inexplicable that this body that is supposedly devoted to rules is going to fly in the face of other than for our affirmative action rules the single most fundamental rule in the delegate selection process, that is, fair reflection."
6:54: On To Michigan: Mame Reiley moves that all pledged delegate positions in Michigan be restored with one half vote; Clinton 69 delegates casting 34.5 votes, Obama's 59 delegates casting 29.5 votes; a net of five.
6:51: Vote to restore participation of entire Florida delegation with half a vote, netting Clinton 19 votes. Near unanimity on the committee. 27-0 and one non-voting.
6:50: Clinton campaign signals it will support the half vote compromise.
6:48: Lots of shouting. "This is disunity. You just took way votes." Huff: "We're giving some back to you." Shouting: "Lipstick on a pig."
6:47: A senior DNC official says that there is a tentative agreement among enough party leaders to seat Florida's delegation fully and give them a half vote, netting Clinton 19 votes, and to seat Michigan's delegation in full and give them half votes according to the Gang of Four's proposal: 69 to 59. The official notes that the public debate might change things.
6:46: Ralph Dawson motions to restore full delegation at one half vote. Again, boos from the audience. 52.5 delegates; Edwards: 6.5 delegates; Obama: 33.5. (Clinton nets 19.)
6:41: The motion to restore a full delegate slate to Florida will a full vote: two-thirds. Crowd cheers the vote. The vote fails, 12-13. Members of the crowd start to scream "Denver, Denver, Denver."
6:37: Alice Germond is hissed when she calls FL and MI "unsanctioned beauty contests." ... Lots of hisses and boos and Germond continues. "Shame on you!" yells a member of the crowd.
6:36: Flournoy: the motion "has no chance of passing this body. It saddens me. I understand the rules.; I understand their perfections and imperfections. ... Being a party of inclusion [drove this rule]... [cheers]..... I'm saddened by the fact that we will take a vote that does not bring Michigan back in with the full vote. I wish we could vote differently."
6:35: Yvonne Gates: "What happened, in my opinion is, that Florida did not follow the rules that we set up. But when you have rules, they must be followed, and when they're not followed, we have chaos."
6:29: Huff: "I know that this particular motion runs counter to what we'll do in 2012...this really is about energizing the state of Florida and energizing the voters and making sure that they have all that they need to do battle." ... The motion is opposed by David McDonald... who believes that the original decision was made without regard to parochial political interest. Whatever the situation was in 2007, "at some point, the Democrats in Florida tried to get a re-vote. They tried to give their people an opportunity to vote within our rules. But this ought to be a party in which we may have to take stands, but we welcome people back."
6:26: Alice Huff motions to fully seat the Florida delegates and give them their full voting rights. Loud cheers from the gallery... Herman rebukes the crowd.
6:26: The Obama campaign confirms that Sen. Barack Obama has quit Trinity United Church in Chicago.
6:24: First up: The Ausman challenge. Herman: "The co-chairs recommend that debate be limited to ten minutes per motion."
6:23: Co-Chair James Roosevelt says that the members "have reviewed the testimony and oral arguments" for each of the challenges. No word of the negotiations.
6:19: Harold Ickes, one hand clutching a cell phone, the other, gesturing a few inches from Alexis Herman's face. He looks unhappy.
6:16: Co-chair Alexis Herman is slowly making her way to the table. Herman and Clinton supporter/RBC member Tina Flournoy are having an animated conversation. Harold Ickes has just joined them.
6:13: Still chit-chatting. There are some Clinton people in the room now.
6:06 pm: Well, they're back. But they're chit-chatting.
6:00: Even the cognoscenti are being kept in the dark. Florida Dem Party chair Karen Thurman is visiting the press corps. She has no special info about the delay in resuming public deliberations.
5:54: Uh-oh. Rep. Robert Wexler has taken his sportcoat off.
5:48: Out of curiosity: what happens if nothing is decided today? When the does RBC next meet? Tomorrow? Next week? Over the phone?
5:46: Back room, close-door deliberations continue. It would be a smoke-filled room, but DC's smoking ban prohibits those.
5:40: There is a broad consensus here that Michigan will not be settled today. Of course, it remains to be seen whether it will be not settled in private, or whether the rules committee will return to the public hearing and not settle the debate in public. Theoretically, if Michigan remains unsettled, the Clinton campaign has another shot of the apple. Of course, the apple is rotting, and it has fallen off the tree and squirrels are nesting around it.
5:19 Video is circulating of one outspoken Clinton supporter here who unloads on Barack Obama and promises to vote for John McCain in the fall.
5:15: The RBC is trying to come to a private consensus, or, at least, trying to come to an agreement on a starting point, on Michigan.
5:08: Two sources with knowledge of the rules and bylaws committee's closed-door luncheon say that members of the committee are arguing over a resolution to Michigan's conundrum, having largely settled on a solution for Florida. They're settling this behind closed doors, at this point... which may fuel some conspiracy theories, depending upon what they ultimately decide.
4:59: We're still waiting.
4:52: The members of the committee aren't back from their lunch. Maybe they're coming close to an agreement, or maybe they're having a food fight.
So -- here we are, waiting for the rules and bylaws committee to deliberate. They could vote on a motion, or they could debate for hours. And it's not clear whether the problems of Michigan and
3:01: Contretemps between the chair of the committee, James Roosevelt, and Harold Ickes; Roosevelt chides Ickes to only ask questions during the question time and not pontificate.
3:00 Under the "concession" proposal floated by Obama and the one that (probably) will be accepted by the committee, Clinton would get 52.5 delegate VOTES and Obama would get 33.5 DELEGATE VOTES for a NET of 19 DELEGATE Votes. Note that Clinton will seat a NET of 38 people who are delegates, but since each gets a half a vote, she will get 19 DELEGATE Votes. Clinton would seat 105 actual people; Obama would seat 67. The superdelegates would each get a half of a vote as well, but, obviously, those votes are counted independently of the pledged delegates.
2:25: Blanchard: "You must NOT turn you back on our loyal state." Blanchard: the candidates taking their names off the ballot "was a knowing, willing decision. It doesn't make the election flawed. It makes a flawed strategy."
2:25: Speaking for Clinton, Ex-MI Gov. James Blanchard talks about his mother and his children. We're running an hour behind schedule.
2:20: Tina Flournoy tongue-in-cheek proposes a 50/50 delegate slating for 2012...
2:19: Mark Brewer notes that the 73-55 allocation formula was used to elect district delegates; Flournoy notes that "So.. the January primary has been used.".... In other words, it's already been recognized.
2:17: Carol Khare Fowler (an Obama supporter) asks what kind of delegate slating process does Bonior envision? Bonior: "Our basic position is that we need to have the Obama campaign and the candidate involved in the slating process."
2:15: Bonior points to the Florida "concession" as a reason to treat Michigan fairly.
2:12: Mame Reiley, a Clinton supporter, "My concern is the allocation. I do really worry that this body making a determination. I worry that we're getting so caught up in the division of those delegates, that I think we should honor the integrity of the voters and the vote. If I knew then what I know today, would I have voted the way I did? Probably not... I want to be fair, I want to do the right thing... I do believe in honoring the debate... and it is flawed... I have total confidence that uncommitted vote will go for Sen. Obama... I can be persuaded to recognize 50%... I've have to be convinced of 100%."
Where we are:
1. Obama campaign acknowledges Florida compromise to give Clinton a net 19 delegates;
2. Clinton campaign wants full slate with full voting powers, not full state with half voting powers
3. Sen., Carl Levin endorses MI Dem proposal to allocate 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 delegates to Obama -- a full delegation.
4. Rep. David Bonior, speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign, wants a 64-64 seating but hints that the campaign would accept a 32-32 seating.
RBC Live Wire 4: The Michigan Presenation And Ickes v. Levin
1:51: Ex-Rep. David Bonior, speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign, urges "fairness" and a consideration of those voters who did not process. Bonior calls the Michigan Dem proposal "arbitrary." "We are aware that the committee members to allow Michigan a full delegation with only a reduction in the voting strength.".... It is "clear that the resulting delegates should be split evenly between the two remaining candidates.
1:50: Levin :If you are unable or unwilling to reach a conclusion on the proportion issue, then fine. If you can't reach a conclusion, it would have to go to the credentials committee."
1:50: Ickes: :"You made some passing reference to the credentials committee."
1:48: Levin: "What we have done is what all of you the Obama campaign would not accept a full delegation/full vote status. His answer: "unity."
RBC member Alice Huffman asks why a full delegate seating would be tantamount to be disunity.
Wexler: "Respectfuly, I wish you had asked this question last year."
Huffman says she couldn't have envisioned the future
Wexler declares that no one supports voters rights more than he does.
12:25: Tina Flournoy, representing the Clinton campaign, asks Wexler, representing the Obama campaign, whether he would accept a full delegation seating with full votes given to the delegates.
Wexler: "We have answered the question."
Flournoy: "No you haven't."
Wexler: "The issue is how do we become unified."
Flournoy: "Thank you, Congressman. I think we understand your answer."
The Clinton folks in the crowd hiss at Wexler.
Harold Ickes then asks Wexler why he thinks Obama has conceded anything.
Wexler: "What we are saying is that up to the number 19, which is the maximum amount allowable under the Ausman petition and your rules, we the Obama campaign ... have agreed to a concession..." He notes that "In the state of Ohio and the state of Pennsylvania together, Sen. Clinton won a total of 19 delegates.." (He means NET delegates)...
RBC Meeting: Live Wire Two: Obama Endorses Ausman Compromise
12:02 p.m: Wexler is yelling. "We must find a way...to resolve this situation so that Florida may participate in this historic nominating process that will soon come to a close." ... Says the rules provide for a reduction in the NUMBER of pledged delegates... Wexler announces Obama campaign's support for Ausman petition... -- says it would award Clinton a net 19 delegates... "Sen. Obama should be commended for his willingness to offer this extraordinary concession.... "
11:58 :Wexler acknowledges that the election was held without a compliant delegate election plan; "both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton pledged not to campaign in Florida and both agreed at the time that the primary would not count. This contest was not a normal primary election." Argues that Obama's decision to follow the rules. Wexler notes said that the RBC told the campaigns that the process was non-binding; addresses a "canard;" this is "completely untrue." Wexler downplays the Obama campaign's roll in pushing against a new Florida primary.
11:56: This is an Obama crowd; Rep. Robert Wexler, identified with the Obama campaign, gets the loudest applause so far.
11:55: SOME SPARKS Don Fowler asks if the committee restored 100 percent of the delegates to Florida, Sen. Nelson would agree to that? He says yes. James Roosevelt: "Don, this is out of order." Fowler: "It's one question.." Roosevelt: "It's one question, but it's out of order."
11:54: Clinton adviser Tina Flournoy asks: "If ten people voted or 20 people voted; does it matter to you the difference?" The Clinton folks are trying to establish a grounding in the notion that if the full delegation isn't seated, then justice will not be done.
11:52: Brazile asks about the demographic diversity; Joyner says that the delegation is in full compliance.
11:49: Donna Brazile is given a spontaneous round of applause.
11:48: Asked which proposal she supports, Joyner: "I want it all!," noting that in life, you sometimes don't get what you want.
11:41: Joyner: "It's the responsibility of the party to seat these delegates and restore our confidence. ... You have the ability to give voices back to the 1.75 million voters in Florida."
11:39: Courtesy of CBS News's Jamie Farnsworth, here's what Bill Clinton said about seating the Florida and Michigan delegation.
“The republicans said something very differently. They said ok you guys went out of line and our party rules provide that we can seat you but you’ll only have ½ a delegate for your elected delegates and your superdelegates will be seated and (inaudible) votes. Our rules provide for exactly the same thing and we didn’t do that. Then she said ok well then give them another election and he said no. I mean basically he instructed his supporters in the Michigan legislature to kill any attempt to have a re-vote. So probably the only option then is to seat them under our rules as half delegates.”
11:38: Jones: "The price that we paid for trying to protect our voters was that we were told that our votes wouldn't count."
11:29: State Rep. Arthena Joyner speaks on behalf of the Clinton campaign
LIVE from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting
11:24: Seems like some folks are interested in scoring debating points rather than getting things done...
11:20 a.m: Nelson and the RBC spar over the fact that Democrats in the FL legislature voted in favor of the early primary. Nelson calls this question "adversarial." He notes that the legislature attached to the primary change bill a voter verified paper trial and that FL Dems tried to amend the bill; it was passed; it was signed into law by the governor of Florida. Member David McDonald responds..."The answer was: yes, people voted for it, but there was an explanation?" ... and contends that the Dems could well have chosen an additional process. "At some point in time, people in Florida really seriously tried to get a complaint process inside the window..."
11:19 a.m: Some background: there is no loved lost between Sen. Nelson and most members of the rules and bylaws committee... hence the tension.... The committee thinks that Nelson took an interest in the process way too late.
11:15 a.m.: "While the race for the nomination is not over, and we have two great candidates, and those two are personal friends of mine... while this race is not over, the dispute about these delegates ought to be resolved today."
11:13: a.m. here in one of the press rooms, two people have been lulled to nap.
11:02: a.m: Sen. Bill Nelson brings up Florida 2000...blames the media for telling Florida Democrats that their votes would not count... "Still, they were determined to send a message."
10:59 a.m.: Matt Drudge posts audio of ex-POTUS Bill Clinton talking about the seating of Michigan and Florida's delegates; he says half of the delegation ought to be seated; his wife's campaign, of course, wants the full delegations restored.
10:53 a.m.: Member Don Fowler (a former DNC chair) calls Ausman's interpretation "incorrect." Says there is no legislative history to support the idea that the superdelegates have a privileged status.
10:51 a.m.: Member David McDonald: notes that the charter does not give each delegate a VOTE at the convention, only the status of delegate. Ausman says it is assumed by the context.
10:48: a.m. Ausman contends that the rules prohibit the DNC from imposing additional penalties on states whose violations consist only of timing problems.
10:46: a.m. Note to the Daily Show writers who read this blog: "a shall in the charter is stronger than a shall in the rules. If you enforce this shall, you better be enforcing the shall in the constitution that says not only am I a delegate, I'm a delegate will a full vote." -- cool, right?
10:44 a.m.: Ausman holds that the automatic penalty trigger, since it contains the word "shall," cannot be expanded if the violation (the "material deficiencies") is due to the time violation. Rule 20(c)(1)(a): "a shall in the charter is stronger than a shall in the rules. If you enforce this shall, you better be enforcing the shall in the constitution that says not only am I a delegate, I'm a delegate will a full vote."
10:42 a.m.: Ausman: "If you want to punish me, and the other DNC members...who tried to get another delegate selection process...if you want to punish me for ...standing up to ..Charlie Crist, you cannot do it." Interesting but elitist argument here... the superdelegates have more standing in Ausman's eyes than the pledged delegates.... there's certainly a personal edge to his words....
10:38 a.m. Ausman notes that many DNC officials are delegates without being chosen; that supports his claim that DNC members and members of Congress "shall" be delegates without having to go through a process to choose them; "even if you think these processes apply to the selection of the charter delegates, I would advise you to read Article II, Section 38.. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, the DNC shall ensure that the National Convention shall provide for all the members of the Democratic National Committee to serve as unpledged delegates."
10:34: a.m.: Ausman acknowledges that Florida did not comply with the rules and ought to be subject to some penalty. ... Article 10, Sec 3: "Each official body of the Dem party...shall .conduct its affairs ...which ... shall be consistent with this Charter." ... He's arguing about the supremacy of the charter... Article 4, Sec. 2: The delegates shall be chosen through process which ... provides for all of the members of the Democratic National Committee to serve as unpledged delegates." Emphasize on "shall." No conditionals. Notes that DNC staff analysis concurs that plain reading of charter supports that interpretation and that, therefore, a subsequent ruling on superdelegates was invalid. [The staff analysis also says that the charter could well be differentiating between valid and invalid processes.)
10:32 a.m.: Jon Ausman gets 15 minutes, and he seems to be spending the first part of his time pointing out every single Floridian who showed up.
10:31: a.m.: Harold Ickes seeks a point of information: "My understand is that both the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign have intervened in this challenge."
10:30 a.m.: the Ausman challenge is up. (1) DNC members and members of Congress are, according to the bylaws, automatic delegates to the convention. (185 pledged delegates should be subject to the half penalty only.) (2) Ausman interprets the rules to suggest that the committee had no authority to extend penalties for states found in noncompliance for reasons of timing.
10:26 a.m.: Beginning the discussion of the Ausman challenges, DNC co-chair James Roosevelt notes that Florida could have rescheduled its primary for after Feb. 5 after they were found in noncompliance. "This was not some theoretical possibility." (Well, but it would have cost millions to hold a primary, and no one was willing to pay for it)
10:15 a.m.: It's all about Michigan, Co-Chair Alexis Herman notes pointedly that Michigan was included in the process to change the calendar and add states, (and thus by implication ought not to be complaining.) She reiterates that the RBC had the discretion to extend the automatic penalty (50% of delegates lost) to 100% and did so.
10:08: a.m. Dean blames the media for "sexist" and "racist" remarks. "That will stop."
10:07: a.m.: Dean refers to "five intellectually bankrupt members of the U.S. Supreme Court" who took the 2004 election away from Al Gore.
10:06: a.m.: Howard Dean tells a story about how Al Gore calmed one of his rants about the state of the Democratic party back in 2003. "Howard, you know, this is not about you, this is about your country."
10:04: a.m.: So there's a consensus... this thing will go by quickly, right? Not a chance. There are 28 members of the rules committee and a national cable audience. People are going to want to talk.
10:00 a.m: DNC chairman of Howard Dean is marveling at the participation of millions of Democrats. 35,000,000 people have come out to support Democrats. "Young voters have tripled, and in some cases quadrupled, previous turnout. In fact, 58% of voters under 30 now identify themselves as Democratic or leaning Democratic."
10:00 a.m.: So here's the Florida consensus: the entire delegation will be restored; each delegate will receive half of a vote; the delegates will be allocated according to the popular vote totals in the state. So Hillary Clinton picks up 19 votes.
09:57 a.m.: There is a quorum; 28 of 30 RBC members are present.
At 9:44, a.m. Co-Chair Alexis Herman gavels the "largest rules and bylaws committee meeting that we have ever had" to order.
09:30: Mitch Cesar, the long-time Broward Co., FL Democratic chairman and a member of the rules and bylaws committee, confirms the notion of a well-developed consensus about Florida's delegation. The fireworks, Mr. Cesar said, will be shot over Michigan, where the state's senior senator, Carl Levin, intends to protect the institutional prerogatives of his state. "We have members of Congress from Florida here who aren't going to speak because they can get a little too excited," he said.
09:38: A woman, dressed in a pink pants suit, parks herself in one of the press filing rooms and refuses to leave. Security hired by the hotel is called. They surrounded the woman; a 20 minute, unproductive discussion ensues. The woman claims she was escorted into the press room by a DNC official; the official, conveniently enough, cannot be found. The woman stood up and immediately fell to the ground, laying prostrate in protest. "Adam nine, we need SOD up to the McKinnon room," one of the hotel security agents radioed. The woman looked up at the curious members of the press corps. "Sorry to disturb you.," she said. As I type, a half dozen police officers and an equal number of security guards are trying to escort her out.
As reported this morning by the Politico, Sen. Barack Obama will gavel the Democratic presidential contest to a close from the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, MN, the location of the Republican National Convention.
And Sen. John McCain will deliver what Republican sources call a "framing speech" from the banks of Lake Ponchartrain just North of New Orleans.
The big unknown tomorrow is a man whose primary interest has nothing to do with the electoral success of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Sen. Carl Levin will be speaking on behalf of Michigan; he wants the entire delegation seated and given full votes, and if he does not get his way, he will likely [ Note -- let me walk back on the word likely... instead, substitute "might"]
challenge the RBC's ruling when the credentials committee convenes unless the rules and bylaws committee promises to strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their privileged status in 2012.
What that means is that the debate about the size of Michigan's delegation will not be settled tomorrow.
What we don't know is whether Hillary Clinton will use Sen. Levin's ornery desire to punish Iowa and Michigan as a pretext for continuing her campaign.
The blogosphere is buzzing with conspiracy theories that Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy have set a trap for Obama: because the RBC won't given them everything they want, they'll have an excuse to prolong the drama. (That rhymed!)
Well. After Wednesday, Barack Obama stops being polite and starts getting real. The establishment of the Democratic Party will turn, en masse, against Hillary Clinton; the race changes gear; the press treats her as a side show.
Another option, and one which I think is more probable, is that Clinton may well want to continue the quest to seat both delegations fully, but she might not do so as a candidate.
John McCain (and his echo chamber) and Barack Obama (and his echo chamber) are today arguing about who knows less about Iraq and whether John McCain ought to have used a gerund instead of the past tense. The point of debate is inconsequential because the truth is knowable; John McCain is, at worst, wrong, or, at best, imprecise:
"We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet."
Some brigades have returned home, so in some areas of Iraq, US troops have been drawn down to pre-surge levels; but other unit are returning, and while the number of combat troops in Iraq is slowly returning to pre-surge levels but it's not there yet -- not there by 20,000 troops -- and might not be there for a while. In what way is he wrong? Is he wrong because he knows the truth and wants to obscure it? It requires a willful suspension of belief to assume that McCain would lie about the status of the withdrawals, just as it requires a leap of imagination to envision a scenario wherein the Democrats wouldn't have pounced on his error like Tom on Jerry. Was McCain wrong because he spoke in the short hand and conflated the future with the present?
On another level, this debate is about whether McCain looks at Iraq through rose-tinted glasses and whether Obama is deliberately shielding himself from signs of progress. Politics abhors a middle ground: either Iraq is getting better or it isn't. McCain has every incentive to maximize the success stories and project forward; Obama has every incentive to maximize the chaos and project forward. The question for voters is: the present is almost as unknowable as the future, so whose vision do you trust more? Polls show that less than half of Americans trust McCain and less than half trust Obama. Obama has an advantage on policy -- Americans want troops home soon and consider the Iraq adventure a failure -- , but the advantage disappears when voters are asked to think about who should lead the policy, whatever it turns out to be. That's probably because McCain retains enough of the aura of a straight-talking, tell-it-like-is-is reformer whose words reflect reality.
So McCain has to be extra careful here; when he uses shorthand, he inevitably has to go back and explain what he meant. Getting Iraq Right is the sine qua non of his campaign, and imprecision exposes his flank and it degrades his brand. The campaign contends that the press is frothing over a question of semantics, but that's tough to argue. The scope of U.S. troop deployment in Iraq is the central issue of the presidential election. When combat brigades withdraw is not a detail. It is an essential element of the question.
The McCain campaign, in any event, professes to be comfortable with any argument about the future of Iraq. For that matter, so does the Obama campaign. One Dem points out: "Look how angry McCain gets everytime someone dares to challenge him about Iraq?'" .... It is hard to determine who is getting the better of whom.
When Hillary Clinton and friends say they might take the Florida and Michigan delegation challenges "all the way until the convention," what do they mean?
Think of tomorrow's rules and bylaws committee hearing as a district court proceeding. If any of the parties involved -- be it either of the campaigns or the state parties or the challengers -- wishes to challenge the RBC's decision, they can file a petition with the credentials committee, which does not take over jurisdiction until the end of June.
Ironically, the RBC's chairs would determine the proximate fate of the appeals petition, but it would most certainly end up being forwarded to the full credentials committee for review. As I've written before, Clinton will almost certainly have enough support on the credentials committee to force the attachment of a minority report.
Then, at the convention -- the Supreme Court in this metaphor --, the majority's decision will get a vote by all of the delegates, followed by the minority report, and then.... well, that's the end of the process.
Note: the credentials committee can't issue a "stay" of sorts... until the RBC's ruling potentially seating both delegates is formally overturned, the delegations are seated. So Florida and Michigan's delegations will, after tomorrow, be seated...unless and until they are de-seated by full convention.
We've written about what the Clinton campaign wants out of the RBC meeting tomorrow and written about what the Obama campaign wants to prevent, but what about the institutional prerogatives of the national party?
1. They want to end the nomination race, and quickly.
2. They want to save face with voters, activist and fundraisers in Florida and Michigan.
3. They want to preserve the legitimacy of the rules process.
4. They do not want the meeting to turn into a political circus.
These pressures may constrain the choices that the members of the committee will be asked to make.
Based on reporting and some guesswork, here is one possible scenario... and note, the numbers aren;t exact, but they're approximately correct: Florida's delegation is restored in full. Each delegate gets a half of a vote; in this scenario, Hillary Clinton would pick up 62 votes and Barack Obama would pick up about 43 for a net gain of 19.
Michigan's delegation would be restored in full; each delegate gets a half of a vote; the delegates are divided evenly between the two campaigns, giving them about 34 or 35 each. (Does the RBC round up from 34.5?)
The total number of delegate VOTES -- not delegates, but delegate VOTES -- needed to cross the nomination threshold would rise to about 2118 -- halfway between 2210 and 2026.
Obama grosses 81 delegates; Clinton nets about 19 (100 grossed).
Depending on the results of PR, MO and SD, to secure the nomination, Obama will need roughly 19 more delegates than he otherwise would have needed.
I'm pretty sure that Obama campaign would be willing to accept this scenario. And unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, the preferences of the presumed nominee will take precedence over the arguments of the challenger.
So what happens to the superdelegates? Unclear at this point.
Ex-Rep. David Bonior and Rep. Robert Wexler (R-FL) will argue the merits of the Obama campaign's position vis-a-vis Florida and Michigan tomorrow. Ex-Gov. James Blanchard (D-MI) will speak on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
McCain Pledges To Be "Chief Negotiator" In Middle East
Here's a bit of a new angle on Sen. John McCain's policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of a hands-back approach preferred by President Bush, McCain pledges, in an interview with my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg, to be the "chief negotiator" between the two sides from day one. (You'll recall that it took President Bush roughly six years before he decided to become fully engaged -- what ex- U.S. ambassador Martin Indyk has called the "legacy syndrome" that afflicts presidents in their late hours.)
JG: Tell me how engaged you would be as President in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and give me a couple of names of plausible Middle East envoys.
JM: I would have a hands-on approach. I would be the chief negotiator. I have been there for thirty years. I know the leaders, I know them extremely well. Ehud Barak and I have gone back thirty years. I knew Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem. I’ve met many times with Netanyahu. I’ve met with Mahmoud Abbas.
In terms of envoys, there are a large number of people who could be extremely effective, and I apologize for ducking the question, but it would have to be dictated by the state of relations at the time. For example, we know that there were behind-the-scenes conversations Israel was having with Syria. Now it’s broken into the public arena. So it would depend on the state of things. If they were more advanced in talks, which they are not, with Hamas, then you need someone like a mechanic. If it’s someone who needs to lay out a whole framework, it would have to be someone who commands the respect of both sides, someone who has an impact on world opinion.
JG: What is the difference between an American president negotiating with Ahmadinejad and Ehud Olmert negotiating with the Syrians?
JM: You don’t see him sitting down opposite Bashar, do you? (Bashar al-Assad is president of Syria.) I mean, that’s the point here. It was perfectly fine that Ryan Crocker spoke with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad. The point is you don’t give legitimacy by lending prestige of a face-to-face meeting, with no preconditions.
JG: But Obama has shifted off that position.
JM: Sure, and the next time he sees where he’s wrong, maybe he’ll shift again. The point is is that he doesn’t understand. Look, in the primary, he was unequivocal in his statements. And now he realizes that it’s not a smart thing to say. I didn’t say he wasn’t a smart politician.
JG: Do you think that settlements keep Israel and the Palestinians from making peace?
JM: There’s a list of issues that separate them, from water, to the right of return, to settlements. Look at the Oslo Accords, which basically laid out a roadmap for addressing these major issues. And settlements is one of them, but certainly one of the issues right now is the shelling of Sderot, which I visited. As you know, they’re shelling from across the border. If the United States was being rocketed across one of our borders, that would probably gain prominence as an issue.
We enjoyed seeing your analysis of our recent May political survey on your blog; one methodology comment regarding your post on young voters and demographics which may be helpful to you in analyzing our polls going forward: It’s true that we interviewed 88 registered voters, ages 18-29, which – as you note – is less than 8% of our unweighted registered voter sample. However, in all of our surveys, we weight our data to census population estimates.
For example, in the May survey, we reached a disproportionately small number of young voters, but after weighting to census data they accounted for 14% of registered voters -- instead of under 8% -- in our weighted sample. Similarly, we reached 364 voters over the age of 65 (about 29% of our unweighted sample), but after weighting they represent 19% of the registered voters. All our analyses are based on weighted, rather than unweighted data.
An early version of a post on Pew's latest poll had several typos; John McCain's net favorability rating is +3, not -3, and I referred to the percentage of 18 to 19 year olds who voted in 2004 when I meant to refer to the percentage of 18 to 29 year olds.
Obama Supporters Score Tickets To Rules Meeting Saturday
An e-mail:
From: Adam L. Barr
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:22 AM
To: dcforobama@XXXXXX
Subject: [dcforobama] Update on DNC Rules Committee Meeting
DC for Obama members were able to snag more than half of the 125 tickets
that were distributed online yesterday. That number does not include DC
supporters not in DC for Obama, nor does it include MD and VA supporters
and grassroots activists. In all, the region was very successful in
getting Obama supporters into the meeting. I know many of you were
frustrated with technical issues yesterday morning, but as you can see,
many others were successful in securing access to the meeting.
If you were able to get a ticket to the meeting and have not emailed me
yet, please do so. We're planning to have all of our members meet up on
Saturday morning before the meeting. Also, we're relaying important
event information to our members that are attending.
Note: The Obama campaign has asked that its supporters refrain from
protesting/demonstrating/rallying at the meeting, regardless of how
well-intentioned those efforts may be. Instead, they urge those without
tickets to engage in one of the activities listed below.
For those of you without tickets, there are three options for you on
Saturday morning.
1) You can show up early on Saturday and wait in the same-day
registration line in the hopes that someone with a ticket doesn't show
up. Tickets will begin to be given away on a first-come first-served
basis beginning at 9:30 am, which is also when the meeting agenda
starts.
2) Stay home and watch the meeting unfold on C-SPAN.
3) Most importantly, you can help move our cause forward in the region
by registering voters in Northern Virginia. We stand a good chance of
turning Virginia blue this year and that work has already begun. While
Clinton supporters are disturbing the peace at the RBC meeting, you can
help move our campaign forward. If interested, email
[REDACTED]@gmail.com for details.
Mystifying, says the McCain campaign. Political bloggers are apparently trafficking in rumors that John McCain had a cold and thus canceled his schedule for tomorrow.
Ms. Buchanan said she was mystified at where the illness rumors were coming from. After all, she said, he was plunging ahead with his town hall meeting at a high school here and a fund-raiser this evening.
“He’s not sick,” she said. “Otherwise, we would have canceled this.
“It really is a scheduling issue,” she added but did not elaborate.
Mike Luo of the Times was also given conflicting information:
An aide also confirmed to The Times that Mr. McCain has a cold.
Perhaps HQ in Arlington didn't quite pick up the transmission from the roadshow. But the optics of McCain's canceling an appearance because of a cold are pretty cloudy; the guy generally campaigns through his colds, and, generally, doesn't have any incentive to allow voters and the media to see him in tip-top shape.
Update (midnight:20):
Well. I've been in contact with the aide who told me that McCain had a cold; I asked this person to reconcile the statement given to me with the one given to the traveling press by Ms. Buchanan. This person's answer I accept:
"Some events got moved around and rescheduled, a media avail got added and wires got crossed. So he's got a full schedule tomorrow. [I] Really do apologize for any confusion."
Well, my word is my bond, and my name is attached to the facts I present. But -- these things happen; on we go.
Rumor: McCain canceled his campaigning in Pennsylvania tomorrow because he's going to announce his vice presidential choice. (This rumor is swirling around Democratic circles.)
Fact: Uh, very, very, unlikely. He's under the weather and wants to rest up, according to campaign sources.
Here's the full fundraising email that just went out:
My Friends,
I have long said that this election will present the American people with a clear choice in electing our next president. The differences between my vision for national security leadership and that of Senator Obama's could not be greater, and this is why I am writing to you today.
I think you all know that this war has been long, hard and tough. And it has meant enormous sacrifice on the part of Americans in blood and treasure. But after four years of a badly mismanaged war, our new strategy is succeeding and we are now winning in Iraq thanks to the service and sacrifice of the brave Americans who are serving.
I have visited Iraq on many occasions because I think the most vital decision that any President of the United States can make has got to be about the security of this nation and the lives of the young Americans who are serving.
But I cannot say the same of one of my opponents, Senator Barack Obama. He has only been to Iraq once, on a trip two years ago. Senator Obama speaks openly about his willingness to sit down with our enemies and engage in open talks, but he hasn't gone to Iraq in over two years to meet with our leaders and see that progress is being made on the ground. Something is wrong with your judgment when you want to sit down unconditionally with Raul Castro and Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but you don't take the opportunity to sit down with General Petraeus and learn about the situation in Iraq firsthand. My friends, this is not the "change" we need in our next president.
Our next president cannot just talk about leadership; they must demonstrate it. Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. Yet he has not held one hearing on Afghanistan, a place where young Americans are in harm's way every day. When a chairman of a subcommittee can't lead, it's bad; when a president doesn't lead, it's unacceptable.
I am convinced that my experience, knowledge and every challenge I have confronted during my years of service to our country and its ideals make me better able to lead and ready to serve as our Commander in Chief on day one. That is why I am asking you to make a financial contribution of $50, $100, $250, $500, or any amount up to the limit of $2,300 right away. Our national security is too important to hand over to someone who does not have the knowledge or experience to make judgment calls on Iraq. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John McCain
P.S. My friends, it's clear Senator Obama was driven to his position on the War in Iraq by his ideology and not by the facts on the ground. He does not have the knowledge or experience to make the judgments necessary to keep our Nation safe, prosperous and strong. Presidents have to listen and learn. Presidents have to make judgments no matter how popular or unpopular they may be. I believe I am better prepared to make these judgments, leading our country as your next president, and I ask that you make a financial contribution right away to my campaign so that I am able to take my message of experience to the American people. Thank you.
Computer hackers in China, including those working on behalf of the Chinese government and military, have penetrated deeply into the information systems of U.S. companies and government agencies, stolen proprietary information from American executives in advance of their business meetings in China, and, in a few cases, gained access to electric power plants in the United States, possibly triggering two recent and widespread blackouts in Florida and the Northeast, according to U.S. government officials and computer-security experts.
One prominent expert told National Journal he believes that China’s People’s Liberation Army played a role in the power outages. Tim Bennett, the former president of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance, a leading trade group, said that U.S. intelligence officials have told him that the PLA in 2003 gained access to a network that controlled electric power systems serving the northeastern United States. The intelligence officials said that forensic analysis had confirmed the source, Bennett said. “They said that, with confidence, it had been traced back to the PLA.” These officials believe that the intrusion may have precipitated the largest blackout in North American history, which occurred in August of that year. A 9,300-square-mile area, touching Michigan, Ohio, New York, and parts of Canada, lost power; an estimated 50 million people were affected.
Officially, the blackout was attributed to a variety of factors, none of which involved foreign intervention. Investigators blamed “overgrown trees” that came into contact with strained high-voltage lines near facilities in Ohio owned by FirstEnergy Corp. More than 100 power plants were shut down during the cascading failure. A computer virus, then in wide circulation, disrupted the communications lines that utility companies use to manage the power grid, and this exacerbated the problem. The blackout prompted President Bush to address the nation the day it happened. Power was mostly restored within 24 hours.
There has never been an official U.S. government assertion of Chinese involvement in the outage, but intelligence and other government officials contacted for this story did not explicitly rule out a Chinese role. One security analyst in the private sector with close ties to the intelligence community said that some senior intelligence officials believe that China played a role in the 2003 blackout that is still not fully understood.
A Prominent New Hampshire Democrat Endorses Full FL/MI Delegation Seatings
Amb. Terry Scumaker is, indeed, a long-time supporter of Hillary Clinton's, but he is also a long-time supporter of the DNC rules process and a partisan of New Hampshire. He wrote today to members of the rules and bylaws committee:
Dear RBC Members:
I do not envy you your current assignment. To be clear, I write to you in my personal capacity as a lifelong Democrat, forty year participant in and defender of the NH Primary and as a former member of the DNC and the 2005 DNC Primary Calendar Commission--and not as the representative of any campaign or organization.
To those of you I know personally, including Chairs Roosevelt and Herman, Don and Carol Fowler, Elaine K., Sen. Clark, Harold, Donna and Tina, please accept my apologies for a group email, but time and my limited technical abilities did not permit otherwise.
As many of you know, we Granite Staters feel extremely strongly about our first in the nation primary and have gone to great lengths to preserve our tradition. At the same time, as one of the original 13 states whose motto is "Live Free or Die", we cherish democracy and our ancestors put their lives and honor on the line for our independence. I believe strongly that the delegates from Florida and Michigan, who were chosen in state certified elections by over 2.3 million people, must be seated or our party will make a mockery of our democracy and itself and will pay a heavy price in November. It appears we will need at least one of those states to win back the White House.
Sen. Levin and NH did not see eye to eye during the primary Commission meetings on many points so it would understandable for us to say seat Florida, but not Michigan, but that would be wrong. The voters of those states had no say in setting their primary dates. I perceive little difference between issues presented by the Florida and Michigan delegations so they should be treated the same. First of all, Sen. Obama took himself off the Michigan ballot presumably to curry favor in Iowa, and perhaps that worked. His absence from the ballot is a "red herring" in your deliberations. He made his decision not knowing what you would do about the delegates and therefore must bear the consequences just as Sen. Clinton did when she signed the pledge proposed by the chairs of the four early state democratic parties.
To say that 2.3 million voters in FL/MI did not know what they were doing when they took time out of their busy lives to go vote is insulting to their intelligence. Our party should never demean voters' intelligence or participation in democracy by voiding valid ballots cast. Please be assured that there is absolutely no clamor in our state to bar the delegates from Florida or Michigan from the convention because they moved their dates. Indeed, I believe the reverse is the case and that if asked, people here would say "count the votes and seat the delegates, that is the only fair thing to do"
As a lawyer, I believe in the rule of law, and that rules should be followed. However, as we lawyers also like to say, it is the exception that proves the rule. Even statutes must bow to the constitution and this is an analogous situation. The DNC rules must bow to the contstitutional principle that every vote be counted -- especially when it is in our party and our nominee's interest in November to do so. Our party can stand for nothing less and if the movie "Recount" didnt reaffirm that for all of us, we are missing the point. The American people won't, and the GOP will make sure they don't.
If the candidates and two states can agree on a reasonable compromise, I hope you will support it. If not, I urge you to vote to seat the entire delegations of both states. Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Terry Shumaker
U.S. Ambassador, ret.
Concord, New Hampshire
The demographics are fairly predictable, but Pew's sample included only 88 voters between the ages of 18 and 29 -- less than 8 percent of the sample. In 2004, 17% of voters were between the ages of 18 and 29, and it's reasonable to assume that the figure will be, at bottom, 20%. Factoring my turnout assumption in, Obama's margin over McCain in the poll is about 6 percentage points, not three.
Other highlights from the poll: Obama is doing worse among evangelicals and better among folks with college degrees... all not surprising.
The primary has taken a toll worthy of the Triborough bridge as even Democrats are now beginning to concede: about half believe that the contest has been going on for too long. Obama has trouble with white women; in March, nearly 60% of women who supported Hillary Clinton had a favorable view of Obama; that figure is down to 43% today. About 44% of Clinton supporters don't like Obama, way up from 26% in December of 2007. Roundabout two-thirds of the party are confident that it will unite around Obama; a third are skeptical. (Don't fret, Dems: only 62% of Republicans expect their party to unite around John McCain.)
More troubling for Obamaniacs: Obama's favorability ratings among independents is down 13 percentage points, and he does not receive the same support from Democrats than John McCain does from Republicans, although the pool of Democrats is much larger and McCain has not faced a true Republican opponent since March. Pew finds that a quarter of whites without college degrees say that their dislike of Barack Obama is personal, rather than political; (18% say it is both personal AND political).
MCCAIN AND INDEPENDENTS
As McCain has more fully embraced the identity of a true-red Republican, the percentage of voters who don't like his politics has climbed; they still have a favorable view of his character. Much of the decline comes from Democrats; that's balanced out with his improvement among Republican; he is slightly less popular among independents that he was, but the rate of decline has slowed. Nearly half of all independents believe that McCain represents a break, a change, from President Bush. (Less than 30% of Republicans are happy with the direction of the country.) McCain now leads by eight points on independents; Obama led among them in April; McCain led among them in March. This is a temporary trend.
Potentially worrisome to Arlington will be news that McCain's fav/unfav rating is a positive three (I originally and incorrectly wrote that the ratio was -3); Obama still has a majority fav rating of positive 9.
THE ISSUES
The usual pattern holds: Democrats hold overwhelming advantages on issues, from the economy to health care to energy to social issues. John McCain is seen as being slightly better on immigration and taxes, while the candidates are essentially tied on the Iraq question (although more Americans favor Obama's solutions). McCain's foreign policy is seen by a slim majority (51%) as "just right," while 16% don't think it's tough enough -- this suggests that efforts to link him to President Bush on foreign policy are failing. There is much more uncertainty about Obama's foreign policy approach.
WHY WE'RE VOTING
The percentage of folks who say they're voting for Obama because they like him (versus against McCain) is 75%; that's roughly the same percentage who, in 2004, said they were voting for George W. Bush and not against John Kerry. The 42% of people who don't like Barack Obama generally distrust his political views; 16% said they don't like the "kind of person he is," perhaps a cover for latent racism, or perhaps the result of percieved elitism.
This is the kind of press release that results in reporters by the busload calling the campaign:
"U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that John McCain will cancel his town hall meeting and media availability in Pipersville, Pennsylvania on Friday, May 30th."
Fear not: he has a cold, according to an aide. That is all.
The DNC's staff analysis, quoted here yesterday, did not offer an opinion as to how Michigan's delegates ought to be allocated, if at all. The Michigan Democratic Party's leading lights, in a letter to members of the rules and bylaws comission today, reiterate their position: the Clinton campaign wanted 73 delegates to Obama's 55; the Obama campaign wanted them split equally; the party split the difference, proposing a 69 to 59 split. "This 69/59 approach was overwhelmingly adopted by the Executive Committee of the Michigan Democratic Party – which like the Rules and Bylaws Committee has members who are strong advocates for both candidates – as a position that can unify our party and put this issue behind us," these party leaders write. :o that end, both of our presidential candidates have made clear that they want Michigan’s delegates to be seated without penalty."
The reality is that the total number of delegates will not be 138; it will be 69; the RBC is not likely to restore the delegation to full strength.
The AP adds a wrinkle to the process: Joel Ferguson, a DNC member who will argue the case on behalf of Michigan, wants to award Clinton her entiire delegate slate (73); award Obama zero delegates because he chose not to be on the ballot (0), and, failing that, give all the superdelegates like himself a full vote and the pledged delegates a half of a vote.
A Third Mississippi Poll Shows A Tight Senate Race
One would have expected a poll taken right after Democrat Travis Childers's victory in the first congressional district to show some enthusiasm among Democrats, but we've now seen three polls -- two of them telephone surveys and the latest, an autodial survey -- showing a very tight Senate race between Republican Roger Wicker and Democrat Ronnie Musgrove.
Here is all we're going to get to know about Sen. Barack Obama's health:
DAVID L. SCHEINER, M.D.
Hyde Park Associates in Medicine, Ltd.
1515 East 52nd Place, Chicago, IL 60615
To Whom It May Concern:
I am David L. Scheiner, a board certified general internist licensed to practice in the State of Illinois. I am on staff at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Rush University Medical Center. I have been Senator Barack Obama’s primary care physician since March 23, 1987. The following is a summary of his medical records for the past 21 years.
During that period of time, Senator Obama has been in excellent health. He has been seen regularly for medical checkups and various minor problems such as upper respiratory infections, skin rashes and minor injuries.
His family history is pertinent for his mother’s death from ovarian cancer and grandfather who died of prostate cancer. His own history included intermittent cigarette smoking. He has quit this practice on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.
Senator Obama’s last medical checkup was on January 15, 2007; he had no complaints. He exercised regularly often jogging three miles. His diet was balanced with good intake of roughage and fluids. A complete review of systems was unremarkable. On physical examination, his blood pressure was 90/60 and pulse 60/minute. His build was lean and muscular with no excess body fat. His physical examination was completely normal.
Laboratory studies included triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal.
In short, his examination showed him to be in excellent health. Senator Barack Obama is in overall good physical and mental health needed to maintain the resiliency required in the Office of President.
Sincerely,
David L. Scheiner, M.D.
John McCain disclosed 1400 pages covering eight years and even an examination of his buttocks (they're freckled!). Obama releases a page covering 21 years -- although, as a much younger man, one would assume that his health is less of a concern to voters than McCain's.
John McCain Is Responsible For Getting Out Of His Predicament
The corollary to the argument that John McCain is not entirely responsible for his political predicament is that he and his campaign are entirely responsible for getting out of it.
Option 0: Focus. Stop the scatter shot, hyper-zig-zag appeal to the base one day, appeal to moderates the next day. Spend much less time on foreign policy -- it seems as if McCain spends 60% of his time on Iraq, 30% on other foreign policy issues, and 10% of time on domestic policy. Change the ratio: spend 50% of your time on reform, 30% on energy and economic security, and 20% on Iraq and foreign policy.
Drawback: McCain's comfort zone would need to significantly enlarged.
Option 1: Truly, madly, deeply distance yourself from President Bush by way of policy distinctions on a subject other than climate change; stop respectfully disagreeing with the 27% President and start angrily disagreeing with him -- after all, Americans are angry about the direction of the country. They do not "respectfully" disagree with the President like you do.
Drawback: Though Republican conservatives have, say the polls, found their way to McCain, they drool much less than liberal Democrats do over their own nominee. The more daylight between McCain and Bush, the theory goes, the less enthusiastic the Republican base will be. Also: the angrier McCain gets, the more he turns moderate Republican and independent women off.
Option 2: Unleash the guns. Go after Obama's patriotism frontally; pronounce Michelle Obama fair game; play the race card; demagogue gays; turn the race into a 2004-esque series of cultural contrasts.
Drawbacks: It's (a) not clear that this works anymore, even as a way to gin up the Republican base; (b) it would completely violate every pr
