Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
OBAMA 1411 - CLINTON 1250.
That's the post-Mississippi pledged delegate count as emailed out by the Obama campaign this morning, excluding Michigan and Florida. Meanwhile, in the morning press release wars, Team Clinton releases a letter campaign manager Maggie Williams sent to Obama counterpart David Plouffe, demanding support for seating Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention:
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.
Fair? In a "fair" election, states abide by DNC rules on when they can hold their primaries, and all candidates actively campaign.
Meanwhile, the Obama folks have attacked Clinton for supposedly inflating her role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Clinton responds by sending reporters this (subscription required) Irish Times story, which looks into the accusations. Irish politicians disagree about Clinton's role, with David Trimble, Northern Ireland's first minister at the time of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, saying she was not a direct player, and Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin, the IRA's political arm, remembering Clinton as closely involved and very knowledgeable. What's clear is that Clinton visited Ireland seven times, held meetings regarding the peace process, and advocated for more women to get involved with Irish politics through Vital Voices, an organization Clinton founded with Madeleine Albright.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (10)
"Fair? In a "fair" election, states abide by DNC rules on when they can hold their primaries, and all candidates actively campaign."
And what about the Democrats living in Florida and Michigan? My mother, step-father, and all his family live in Florida. They have been Democrats their whole lives, consistently supported the party.
Do you actually believe that it is fair that they don't get a chance to express their opinion as to who the Dem nominee should be ... but it is perfectly OK that thousands of Republicans and independents in states like Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. did?!
Posted by: Texas Yankee | March 12, 2008 11:23 AM
Do you actually believe that it is fair that they don't get a chance to express their opinion as to who the Dem nominee should be ... but it is perfectly OK that thousands of Republicans and independents in states like Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. did?!
Yes. The Republican issue is completely irrelevant. The leaders of the Democratic Party in Michigan and Florida are the ones who decided not to play by the rules. When people consciously, and with much prior warning so they know fully the consequences, act against rules they've agreed to then their punishment is fair. It's not great that the voters in those states haven't had their delegates tallied, but if they want a scapegoat look to their own state parties.
Posted by: Josh R. | March 12, 2008 11:45 AM
"Fair? In a "fair" election, states abide by DNC rules on when they can hold their primaries, and all candidates actively campaign."
And it is also fair for the state parties to petition to the RBC for a revote, and it is also fair for the state parties to petition the credentials committee to seat their delegates.
These states didn't play by the rules and so their primaries don't count. But per DNC rules they have the right to pursue the two options outlined above. The state parties ARE being fair and ARE playing by the rules. The only thing unfair here is Dana's implication.
Posted by: sbj | March 12, 2008 11:49 AM
Michigan's primary did not have Obama's name on the ballot and yet the Clinton camp calls this "fair"? I've got to get me one of them Clinton dictionaries...
Posted by: dilford | March 12, 2008 11:52 AM
"Michigan's primary did not have Obama's name on the ballot and yet the Clinton camp calls this "fair"? I've got to get me one of them Clinton dictionaries..."
It was his choice to grandstand for Iowa and NH and take his name off. Rerunning the elections would be too costly, so they should just seat the delegates. This would have 2 advantages:
1) Doesn't disenfranchise voters
2) If Obama gets the nomination, it removes the question of legitimacy.
Just seat the delegates and be done with it.
Posted by: Rock | March 12, 2008 12:22 PM
If this was anything other than a cynical ploy, Clinton would had supported the right of Florida & Michigan to hold early primaries before the fact, she would had campaigned in those states beforehand.
Posted by: Eric | March 12, 2008 12:42 PM
If this was anything other than a cynical ploy, Clinton would had supported the right of Florida & Michigan to hold early primaries before the fact, she would had campaigned in those states beforehand.
Exactly right. If the Clinton camp was so concerned about disenfranchising the people in Michigan and Florida, they would have fought this idea before it was adopted, and would never have agreed to it. Instead, they somehow neglected to bring it up until someone realized "Holy shit, we might lose this election! We need to get every vote we can!"
Posted by: bucky | March 12, 2008 1:07 PM
Exactly right. If the Clinton camp was so concerned about disenfranchising the people in Michigan and Florida, they would have fought this idea before it was adopted, and would never have agreed to it. Instead, they somehow neglected to bring it up until someone realized
It wasn't just that. Hillary, like Obama, wanted to pander to Iowa's and New Hampshire's fetishes for going first. Had she said the Michigan and Florida primaries should matter and they shouldn't be stripped of their delegates, she would have been taking a big political risk in Iowa and New Hampshire.
There's nothing wrong with arguing that the DNC rules stink and that Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't have a monopoly on going first. Indeed, I agree with that. But you don't get to have it both ways-- you have to argue that position before Iowa and New Hampshire and take your lumps there, and put the other campaigns on notice that this is what you are doing so they have a chance to decide if they want to contest the Michigan and Florida primaries.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | March 12, 2008 3:39 PM
As to Northern Ireland, if it's Gerry Adams's word against David Trimble's, I'd be inclined to go with the one who doesn't have blood on his hands.
Posted by: Hal | March 12, 2008 7:15 PM
The very bottom line here is this...EVERYONE in both states KNEW their votes would NOT count prior to the primary, and that the delegates would not be seated. This was NO surprise to anyone. In Michigan we were told by the press, media etc., that the candidates were TOLD to remove their names from the ballot by the DNC. Obama and Edwards did, but OF COURSE, Hillary did NOT. We were also told that in order to register a vote for either Obama or Edwards since they were NOT on the ballot, to vote "undecided". I am sure most people didn't even bother to go to the polls. Now, however, Hillary Clinton some how feels the results were fair?????????? She has snakes in her head. I personally do not believe the state should be allowed a re-do in any way shape or form or affirm Hillary's "WIN"
Posted by: ollie | March 12, 2008 11:18 PM