[The] Michigan plan, approved by a 19 to 8 vote, that drew sharper opposition because of the way that state's delegates will be awarded. Under the plan, Clinton will be given 34.5 delegate votes in Denver to Obama's 29.5 delegate votes, a percentage distribution recommended by leaders of the Michigan Democratic Party but opposed by the Clinton campaign officials, who said it violates the results of Michigan's Jan. 15 primary.
"This motion will hijack -- hijack -- remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton," said Harold Ickes, who oversees delegate operations for the Clinton campaign and is also a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. "This body of 30 individuals has decided that they're going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters."
Arguing that the Michigan compromise "is not a good way to start down the path of party unity," Ickes warned that Clinton had authorized him to note that she will "reserve her rights to take it to the credentials committee" later. Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson later affirmed that Clinton will reserve her right to challenge the outcome.
Don Fowler, another Clinton supporter on the panel but not formally tied to the Clinton campaign, voted for the Michigan plan. "It does not represent the first choice of my candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton," he told the panel. "But I think [it is] in the best interest of the party."
First, Harold Ickes works for the Clinton campaign in overseeing that Clinton gets every Michigan delegate from the January 15th primary. And Ickes is gambling all the delegates, or nothing, with the veiled Clinton campaign threat of sending this Michigan delegate fight to the convention. But the real surprise here is Clinton supporter, Rules Committee panel member Dan Fowler, who believes that the Michigan compromise represents the best interest for the Democratic Party over his support for Hillary Clinton. Fowler was willing to put the interests of unifying the Democratic Party first, over that of supporting one presidential candidate over another. Fowler voted in favor of the Michigan plan. That says something about why the Michigan plan was approved by the Rules Committee in a 19 to 8 vote--enough Rules Committee panel members may have realized that this was the best compromise to make in order to unify the Democratic Party, and bring the Michigan delegation into the convention.
Of course, Harold Ickes had a really bad day. Ickes was slammed hard by Michigan Senator Carl M. Levin. From the Washington Post:
During the first session, Ickes pointedly challenged Levin over the Michigan plan, saying it would strip Clinton of delegates she had rightly earned through the primary. "Why not take 10?" he asked indignantly. "Take 20. Just keep on going."
"You're calling for a fair reflection of a flawed election," Levin shot back. "And what we're trying to do is keep a party together so we can win a critical state in November."
Here is the YouTube video of the exchange:
Levin is right. This is a situation where you have to find some type of compromise to a screwed up primary election. Obviously the best thing to do is to strip the Michigan delegates of their voting rights in the convention. But because of this close Democratic primary fight, there had to be some way to include the Michigan delegation into the convention for the good of both the National Democratic Party and the Michigan Democratic Party. Levin wants to keep the Michigan Democratic Party together for the general election and winning the state for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who that nominee is. Ickes has a point that uncommitted votes should remain uncommitted, but he fails to take into account the screwed-up nature of the Michigan primary vote, where the state moved its primary date in violation of the Democratic primary rules, or that Obama took his name off the ballot and Clinton did not. Clinton may have rightly earned those delegates in the Michigan primary, but the entire primary was so completely screwed up. The votes and delegates should not count in the convention. The fact that the Rules Committee is trying to make some type of compromise in bringing the Michigan delegation into the convention says something about getting past this problem, and concentrating on organizing Michigan Democrats towards the general election in beating Republican John McCain.
It appears that Clinton advisers are seeing the writing on the wall now of an eventual Obama nominee. From MSNBC News:
The decision by the party's Rules Committee raised slightly the total delegates Obama needs to clinch the nomination. Clinton advisers conceded privately he will likely hit the magic number after the final primaries are held Tuesday night, but said the ruling threatened to dash any hopes of a unified party.
A senior Clinton adviser, speaking on a condition of anonymity about internal campaign decisions, said the decision could be used to help her raise campaign donations for a scaled-down campaign that might focus on a signature issue — such as health care reform — rather than a traditional fight for the nomination.
The advisers said no decisions had been made, and it was still possible that Clinton would bow out once Obama goes over the top.
The Clinton campaign was hoping to get their way in seating the Michigan delegates as according to the primary result, with 73 pledged delegates going to the Clinton, and 55 uncommitted delegates that Clinton could hopefully woe into her campaign. Obama should not get any Michigan delegates since he removed his name off the Michigan ballot. Had Clinton fully got her way on the Rules Committee, this could have allowed her enough delegates to just about pull even with Obama in the delegate count, and go into the convention in arguing to the super-delegates that she is the more electable candidate to win. The Michigan compromise shot down this long-shot Clinton strategy. It is, again, now a question of when Clinton will pull out. Clinton may use the last few days of her campaign to talk about her issues, and then either bow out after the final primaries of Montana and South Dakota on June 3rd, or when Obama cinches the nomination. It all depends on when Hillary Clinton decides to end her campaign.
This interesting detail from MSNBC News reports that the Obama campaign had enough votes on the Rules Committee to split the Michigan delegates in half, 50-50. What did the Obama campaign do? They supported the Michigan Democratic Party compromise:
Allan Katz, a Rules Committee member and Obama supporter, said the Obama campaign had enough votes on the committee to support the campaign's proposal to split the delegates 50-50 in Michigan. Ultimately, the campaign agreed instead to support the compromise negotiated by the Michigan Democratic Party as a way to resolve the matter.
"The ironic thing is Obama had the majority of that committee," Katz said. "The Obama campaign wants to move on and compromise. We did not muscle our way through it. It was a wise decision from a well run and wise campaign that will reverberate."
The Obama campaign had the votes to split the Michigan delegation 50-50. I was even open to accepting a Michigan 50-50 split in delegates for both candidates as a compromise in order to seat the Michigan delegation into the convention. However, a 50-50 split would skewer delegate votes over to the Obama camp, just as the January 15th Michigan primary results skewer delegate votes to the Clinton camp. However, there is a little class with the Obama campaign in accepting the Michigan Democrats' compromise proposal, rather than forcing down the 50-50 split proposal. And if the Clinton campaign is angry over the Michigan Democratic Party's compromise, just think of the various shades of purple on the Clinton campaign advisers' faces, or the steam coming out of their ears, had the Michigan 50-50 split in delegates proposal been approved.
And finally, MSNBC's political director Chuck Todd reports that the Clinton's no longer control the Democratic Party--it is now Barack Obama's party. From YouTube:
We're heading into a new era, with a new party, and a potential movement for change.
Update: The Jed Report has a great analysis on why the Michigan Democratic Party created this compromise:
The 69-59 itself was a compromise between a proposal by the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign. Essentially, the RBC split the difference between each campaign's proposal, giving Clinton a slight advantage.
Let's start by looking at this from Ickes' perspective. (I'm being specific here because Clinton supporters like Don Fowler disagree with Ickes.)
Ickes says the primary election on January 15 was a valid reflection of Michigander preferences even though neither Barack Obama nor John Edwards were on the ballot. Ickes says that based on the vote, 73 of Michigan's delegates should have been allocated for Clinton and that 55 should have been allocated for "Uncommitted." Moreover, he says that the 55 "uncommitted" delegates should be truly uncommitted, equally open to support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
The idea that the "uncommitted" vote was truly uncommited is absured; based on exit poll data, it was almost entirely a vote for either Barack Obama or John Edwards (with a few more for Bill Richardson). Moreover, decent chunk of Clinton's supporters said they would have voted for Obama had he been on the ballot (and some would have chosen Edwards as well).
Moreover, there were 30,000 write-in ballots, most of whom likely went for Obama, but since he didn't put his name on the ballot, the write-in ballots could not be counted. So they were literally tossed aside.
Unlike the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign took the position that the election had no meaning because he was not on the ballot. He therefore proposed a 64-64 split.
So Clinton supported a 73-55 split, and Obama supported a 64-64 split. The Michigan Democratic Party essentially split the difference. For the Clinton proposal, this meant her total dropped by 4, from 73 to 69, and his increased by 4, from 55 to 59. For the Obama proposal, it meant that her total increased by 5 and his total dropped by five.
Another way of thinking about it: Clinton proposed she net 18 delegates from Michigan. Obama proposed a split. The RBC decided she would net 10, a compromise slightly tilted in her favor.
Ickes calls this a hijacking, but that's baloney, because the primary was never sanctioned; there never was a 73-55 split that the DNC had approved. Today was the first day that the DNC approved any delegates whatsoever for Michigan.
The more I look at this Michigan compromise, the more I like it.
No comments:
Post a Comment