CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
May 8, 2008 – 1:29 p.m.
Clinton Rejects Latest Michigan Delegate Plan
By Marie Horrigan, CQ Staff
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday rejected a compromise plan to seat Michigan’s delegates to the national convention that would give 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama .
“This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan’s January primary. Those votes must be counted,” Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said.
The Michigan Democratic Party had approved the plan and intended to submit it to the Democratic National Committee meeting on May 31. Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said in a statement that the plan was a “good step toward a solution that unites Democrats and ensures that our state will not face a McCain presidency.”
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) had stripped Michigan of its delegation to the Democratic National Convention because the state party scheduled its Jan. 15 primary in violation of national party rules. Several plans have been proposed to find a way to seat Michigan’s delegation.
Clinton’s campaign has maintained that the delegation should be allocated according to the vote in the Jan. 15 primary (73/55) but Obama’s campaign had argued the delegation should be split between the two candidates (64/64) because he was not on the ballot. Clinton won that contest with 55 percent of the vote but most of the other major party candidates, including Obama, had removed their names from the ballot because the state violated national party rules.
Since any plan must be approved by all the players — the state and national parties and both candidates -- it is unclear what will happen now.
The Michigan Democratic Party’s Executive Committee on Wednesday had endorsed the 69/59 plan offered April 29 by a group of senior Michigan Democrats including Sen. Carl Levin , Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick , UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and DNC member Debbie Dingell.
Elizabeth Kerr, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Democratic Party, said the Clinton campaign’s assertion that the votes “weren’t honored” was “incorrect.”
“This proposal honors the result of the January 15th primary but also takes into consideration that Obama’s name was not on the ballot,” she said.
If the state party ends up offering the plan to the national party, the DNC would consider it at the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in Washington on May 31. The DNC did not have any comment on the plan.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who has endorsed Clinton, said the former first lady would not make any decision about the future of her campaign until the status of the Michigan and Florida delegations had been settled at the May 31 meeting. The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to the national convention because the state legislature set the primary for Jan. 29 in violation of national party rules.
Some Democrats have pushed Clinton to consider suspending her campaign, particularly after her narrow victory in Indiana and her heavy loss to Obama in North Carolina during the primaries Tuesday.
“She’s going to make the decision when the time comes,” Feinstein said.
Clinton Rejects Latest Michigan Delegate Plan
Catharine Richert contributed to this story.
Comments
At the end of the primary season, Hillary will have received more popular votes (with Fl & MI) than either Barack or McCain. What more can you say for a third-party candidacy? She Needs Money? She'll get it for the GE from Dems, Republicans, Independents, even matching funds from the Feds. Running Mate? Choose a centrist Billionaire supporter: Warren Buffett, etc.
When will America get it? Clinton DOESN'T WANT THE VOTES COUNTED. She wants a talking point, a means of distraction that will help to keep her in the race. It gives her something to talk about, and for her to reject a perfectly fair proposal only serves to remind us that it's not about Michigan voters - it's about her.
Hillary is correct! If we do not count all votes the Democrats are no better than Republicans who stole the 2000 & 2004 elections. A decision to make a rule to discount votes should NEVER be allowed.
Well, that shows her hand. She has absolutely no interest in seating those delegations and finding a resolution that is actually fair to the voters of MI. It is a shame really that it is coming to this.
So much for her commitment to having the states represented--it's her way or the highway.
Allowing Sen. Obama to veto a revote in Michigan is the height of "elitist" arrogance by the Dem. Party. Why the hell should one man run the tables in a presidential election? (For that matter, why did the Senate Judiciary Committee toss Sen. Clinton's gas tax relief bill simply because her opponent doesn't like it?) The planet is disintegrating and the global economy collapsing, but suddenly the year 2008 is all about accommodating a young African American politician with no background or experience in federal goverment as he vies for the presidency. What a quaint gesture, but suicidal, don't you think? If there's not going to be a re-vote in Michigan because of this gentleman, then by any non-Alice-in-Wonderland-measure, such intransigence represents a forfeit and all the pledged delegates should go to Clinton. Certainly, if the roles were reversed here, this would be a foregone conclusion. Every day, you folks in Washington make laughingstocks out of all the rest of us in the eyes of the world.
The offer was not a fair offer to begin with because Obama's MI supporters weren't given a candidate to vote for because our guy wasn't on the ballot. Also, MI polls 50/50 between Obama and Clinton. And even at that, Hillary won't accept any compromise. I ask Hillary supporters if they would think it was fair if Hillary hadn't been on the ballot and the vote was counted anyway. All the candidates agreed to remove their name from the ballot, but after everyone else did, Hillary said she changed her mind. But, leaving all that aside, she won't compromise at all? The suggested compromise is only 4 less that the vote gave her for Pete sake. I'm a Michigander and it is real obvious to me that Hillary is using us and cares none at all about what is good for our state. Now, she has even gone against the MI Democratic Party. The MI super delegates have been hugely on Hillary's side all along and now she even goes against them. She really does believe that she's the only important thing. How did she become this thing she is?
Talk about disenfranchising voters, only one candidate on the ballot? There is no way that is fair and she should not get any advantage for refusing to follow the DNC rules which she agreed to and signed off on. As far a Florida goes, how would we ever know how many voters stayed home because they knew their votes would not count. These states chose to violate the rules and must suffer some punishment, otherwise why make rules?
As a voter in the state of Michigan, we were told that if we wanted to vote for Obama then pick 'undecided' if you wanted to vote for Clinton, then pick Clinton. Clinton won the State and therefore should be given ALL of her delegates. Neither she or Obama campaigned in the state, so it was the will of the people. I don't blame her for rejecting this plan.
So if I promise to remove my name from the ballot and then go back on my pledge, can I have some delegates too? Karl Wolfson this morning was so stunned that Obama wasn't competing in West Virginia since West Virginia was such a "crucial" state in the general election strategy of any Democratic candidate hoping to win the White House. And Terry McCauliffe is so adamant about getting the Michigan and Florida delegates sat when he wrote in his book the exact opposite position four years ago.. Does anyone over there have a honest bone in their body? Spin, pander, posture, triangulate. The arguments keep getting even more ridiculous by the day.
John-- That's a complete Clinton lie and anyone that can think for themselves and not just read Clinton lines would know that. First off, when Clinton claims she is winning the popular vote she ignores all caucuses (the majority of which Obama crushed Hillary) because they don't have totals. Secondly, she includes her MI votes but does not give Obama the "other" votes. And for anyone to say that Clinton would win MI ignores the facts. Ann Arbor voted for Other over Clinton! If you add Detroit, Lansing, the small college towns, and the upper peninsula, where strong environmentalists would of backed Obama, MI would of been close. You should, I don't know, think before you quote the Clinton talking points!
Oh and I forgot to mention that her totals were from after Pennsylvania. North Carolina ended that argument when he netted 300k votes.
A runner can't claim victory when they agree that the race won't count and that they will not run in the race and the other runner doesn't show up (because of that agreement). She did not 'win' Michigan. There is no way to appropriately distribute delegates or the popular vote. 50/50 is the only truly fare way. Therefore, for HRC to turn down a 10 delegate gain when she had previously agreed in writing that the delegates wouldn't be seated sums it up. Therefore, of this there is no doubt, like the earth round, she is doesn't want Michigan seated, she just wants an unfair contest 'win'.
Too bad Obama took his name off the ballot and then worked like a fiend behind the scenes to stop any of the many revote plans that Clinton had agreed to support. He knew he couldn't win there! I hope she gets 100% of the MI votes since she's the only one who wanted them counted. Serves Obama right. Like his favorite Reverend Wright said about 9/11, "Chickens...comin' home to roost!" Hillary is my nominee and the only one I will vote for in 2008.
If ever there was a tempest in a teapot, this qualifies. For Clinton to think the vote was "fair" with only her name on the ballot, is arrogance par exellance as far as I'm concerned. If she were truly as honorable as she claims to be, she would have taken her name off the ballot like the rest of the honorable candidates before the votes were cast. She knew exactly what she was doing. I just don't understand what the FUSS is all about between the various camps. What's with Dean? Does he have a foot to put down, or is he just going to let this childish game of tennis continue?
hillary finds a cake in a garbage can and wants to enter it in a cake baking contest. when the judges discover it IS half baked; bill asks "what do you mean by the word IS?"
Obama deliberately took his name off the ballot in MI there was no rule for him to do so, why did he leave it on in FL? because he advertised there and thought he might win. obama refused a revote in MI he doesn't deserve one delegate from that state and if he is the nominee McCain will be our next President, I sure as hell will never vote for obama and because the DNC has been so hell bent on selecting our nominee and disenfranchising millions of voters I will be leaving the Democratic party and I am most definately not the only one.
They have deleted 4 of my posts from Michigan about the cold hard facts Obama wants no one to know about
Obama rejected many revotes in MI. Carvill even offered to pay for the revote personally, and Obama said NO. Obama likes to twist the rules and facts to play the victim card but he's old, old, school politics, slicker than Bill.
I think Hillary should be given the Florida and Michigan delegates that she won. I'm from florida and feel like its 2000,2004 all over again. I know one thing if she isn't the nominee, McCann will be our next president. I know many many dem, including myself, who have said they will vote for McCann rather then see Obama in the White House
I ama a 77 year old white male and feel Obama is more qualified to be President than any other candidate. Why should they count Michigan when Obama followed the requirements and wasn't even on the ballot. Of course Hillary wants Michigan counted. By the way I live in Florida.
Clinton originally (when she thought she was going to win the nomination) agreed to the delegates from Florida and Michigan not being seated, now that she is losing, she wants to have them seated. This woman is evil, she is helping the Republicans get McCain into the white house by delaying the process. COME ON PEOPLE OPEN UP YOUR EYES! CLINTON DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY AND SHE IS ONLY IN THIS FOR HERSELF. SHE WILL SAY WHATEVER IT TAKES TO DELAY THE PROCESS AND HAVE MCCAIN WIN.
What is being ignored is that in Michigan, Edwards was also on the ballot and likely would have received 15% of the vote which voted "undecided". Splitting the votes so that Hillary gets FEWER votes than she received when Obama chose to take his name off the ballot? how on earth could that be fair? Additionally, Obama held a big campaign rally (titled a fund raising event) in Florida breaking his own pledge not to campaign there, and qualifying him to get NONE of the delegates--this is why he's fighting against seating the delegates--he won't win.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: