I'm a huge fan of Dr. Maddow, and I appreciate much of what she is arguing with regard to the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on 5/31, but I disagree.
I disagree with two main points of the argument, summarized here:
- Solidifying the number of delegates needed for victory will take away the ability to "move the goalposts." If the HRC Campaign gets what they want, they can't dispute anymore, and will have to concede.
- If it goes to the convention, Dems lose.
If you haven't read her piece, it's available here: www.huffingtonpost.com/...
My response to point number one:
Hillary's campaign will continue to fight on after this issue is resolved one way or the other. Giving her everything she is now asking for will not somehow "take the wind out of her sails." Quite the contrary, it will give her even more reason to keep fighting. None of these votes have actually been cast and just because the AP roll-call or whatever count you want to use on June 4 is BO 2236- HRC 2180 (I'm not going to get all Chuck Todd in this short diary--Not that I could if wanted to...) does not mean that Hillary has lost. As we know, delegates can switch.
There is no compelling reason to just gift the HRC campaign more delegates now, if you consider that even if they are "given everything they want" and are still behind, they are very likely to still take it to the convention. Giving someone everything they ask for is not a good negotiating strategy. They will just ask for more. He should be saying "NO. NOTHING." right now. Then he can walk in and give MI/FL the superdelegates and a 50/50 split. The delegates should not be seated based on the vote in any circumstances because you can not legitimize that vote--it was very flawed and not just because it was early. This is not about punishing MI/FL anymore. That punishment was already doled out. It's now about enfranchisement and what is fair. The people who voted knew it would not count and the people who did not vote knew it would not count. Counting it now would just be wrong. Reasonable people understand this to be true and it takes away her argument about the popular vote. Barack Obama and his campaign should hold on to this point.
Point number two:
This is much more difficult to dispute. I have no idea actually, but just repeating that historically this has been the case does not make it true today. We may need to go to the convention. We should start preparing for this eventuality and not just be afraid of it and give away the farm trying to avoid it. Consider John Kennedy's statement that Barack Obama likes to quote: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."