|
I, too, watched the arrogance of Harold Ickes yesterday and he struck me as a bitter, disingenuous old man...especially when I read the following. As an initial matter, Rule 11 of the delegate selection rules state that all nominating contests (be they a caucus, primary, or whatever) must be held between the first Tuesday of February and the first Tuesday of June. Four states were specifically excepted: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.
Rule 20(c)(1)(a) states that if a state does not comply and holds a primary, caucus, etc. before the first Tuesday of February or after the first Tuesday of June, are immediately decreased by 50% (pledged delegates and alternates). In addition, the rules states that no members of the DNC and no unpledged delegates allocated at the district level are permitted to vote in the state's delegation. Rule 20(c)(1)(b) states that any candidate who campaigns in one of these states (as the rule defines it, and it's quite extensive), that candidate is not entitled to any delegate votes. Therefore, 20(c)(1)(a) is what is at issue here.
Rule 20(c)(6) allows the Rules and Bylaws Committee to impose additional sanctions. This is where the Committee had authority last year to strip each state of all of their delegates. I should also note that each state was given 30 days to come up with an alternative before the 100% sanction went into effect. In addition, the sanction imposed last year was nearly unanimous. The only person who voted NOT to impose these sanctions was Mr. Katz, who is, incidentally, an Obama supporter. Also importantly, that means that Harold Ickes voted FOR the 100% sanction because he was, at that time, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee (and still is).
Rule 20(c)(7) provides a "safe harbor." This rule states that in the instance that the state party took all steps to bring the state in compliance but couldn't (i.e. the Florida situation), then the Committee had the authority, but was not required to, to reverse any portion of the reduction in delegates. On this, I'm not sure that the state party did very much at all in Florida. In fact, you can search for the video of State Senator Gellar who appears to rather mock the notion on the floor of the State Senate in Florida, but you should judge for yourself.
Regarding Michigan, the big issue was about the "uncommitted" status. The Clinton people were correct in stating that "uncommitted" is a status for a delegate in par with a delegate for a candidate. They, in particular Harold Ickes, made hay of the notion of fair reflection within the delegates. Had Obama not taken his name off the ballot, this would not be such a sticking point. In retrospect, this was the wrong, inopportune, whatever decision. However, he did this with the assumption, WHICH EVERYONE BELIEVED, that Michigan would not count. Yes, that includes Senator Clinton who essentially said as such. That being said, while I think the Clinton argument is valid, it fails to acknowledge the intent of the "uncommitted" status of a delegate. Clearly, this was intended as a way for a voter, when presented with a full slate of candidates to vote to participate in the primary when she really did not like the choices. This notion seems to me inapplicable when people could NOT vote for a candidate of their choice, as it was here. In fact, "uncommitted" in this instance does not "fairly reflect" in the intent of the voter. Unfortunately, as the Michigan Democratic Party Chair indicated, there is no way to "fairly reflect" voter's intentions here. Therefore, "uncommitted, " were truly not uncommitted delegates, but were the expression of those who could NOT express a preference because their candidate was not on the ballot and a write-in would have been disallowed (unless the candidate informed the Michigan Board of Elections that he would accept write-ins...I would surmise that none of the campaigns knew of this rule).
Regardless, we cannot lose sight of the following:
1. Nobody thought MI or FL would count.
2. The Committee VOTED, with one "no vote" to strip them of their votes...that includes Clinton-leaning members.
3. Michigan almost falls in a no-man's land that the rules did not cover, which, unfortunately, necessitated an imperfect compromise.
Finally, let me just say, for full disclosure, that I'm an Obama person. I actually think that the prior rules committee ruling should have stood. The fact is that Mrs. Clinton never thought she'd need these states because she assumed she'd win this by Super Tuesday, and she has stated as such. Let's also be honest here...if the two states that flouted the process had been two states that were not swing states, blue states, or states necessary to a Democratic win in November, we wouldn't be here. Moreover, the disingenuous of (as I see it) the Clinton campaign is appalling. If she cared SO much for the voters in Michigan and Florida (and not her own political skin) she would have been making this argument 9 months ago. Hillary ran an absolutely awful campaign with no strategy beyond February 5 (super Tuesday). Now...she is actually asking that the rules be changed FOR HER. If she quit hiding beyond "counting the votes" and was honest and said that this all about the fact that she needs the delegates, that she should have advocated back then didn't and is now because she needs them, I could at least respect her.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
