Hillary will take "incendiary" steps to get delegates

From the NY Times:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s advisers made it clear that they were prepared to take potentially incendiary steps to build her delegate count.

I hate the phrase, "I told you so," but I have been saying this is all about Hillary, and not about what is best for the country, or the people, as she will destroy the Democrat's chances in November if she does this.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.

Al Sharpton knocks down one of the arguments being used by the NAACP to seat Florida's delegates:

Julian Bond, the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called for the delegates to be seated, saying failure to do so would amount to disenfranchising minority voters in those states. But on Wednesday, such a move was denounced by the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who said many people in those states did not go the polls because they assumed their votes would not count.

I am on record as of right now: if the Clintons try dirty tricks, to either get Fl or Michigan to vote when voters were told beforehand that the delegates wouldn't count, or if the superdelegates override the will of the people, I will not vote for Hillary as President this November. I will leave it blank, vote third party or stay home, depending what my own congresswoman does.

I have had it with the Clintons. They have wrought great harm to the Democratic party before, and they are about to do it again.

•  This is disgusting...

  despite what complete crap this yellow-blazered liar is peddling, this is NOT the fun part, or the exciting part.  This is the part where Hillary stops pandering to actual Democrats that might otherwise vote for her, and she reverts back to her DLC-Republic Lite behavior.  Incendiary steps?  Hmmmm, who else do we know that regularly takes these incendiary steps to win at all costs?  Once again, she puts herself before her party under the guise of wanting to fix America and not see us fall backward.  Give me a fucking break.  

  by Punditcrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:09:03 AM PDT

  •  SIGN THE PEITITION- DON'T LET HER SEAT MI AND FL

    We need to stand up to this NOW and show how many people are outraged at this attempt to change the rules mid-stream and hijack these delegates.

    PLEASE SIGN THIS AND PASS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/...

    by newyorknewyork on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:14:00 AM PDT

•  That funny

  Enfranchising voters is now "dirty tricks." The Sodom & Gomorrah model of wiping out millions of votes in Florida and Michigan is the only true way. Kumbayah.

  by jmknapp on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:10:28 AM PDT

  •  WTF are you talking about?

    The Democratic party sets the rules for how it selects it nominees. The state parties of FL and MI broke the rules. This isn't about disenfranchising anyone, it is about state parties violating the rules knowing full well that it would be their actions that rendered their delegates void.

    You have a problem with that, tell it to the FL and MI state parties.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:14:20 AM PDT

    •  I would only add...

      ...that a lot of votes were wiped out when people stayed home in those states because they knew that the voting was nothing more than a beauty contest. And as has been pointed out, it's the state parties who are to blame for that state of affairs.

      by Devin on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:17:22 AM PDT

    •  The unpledged delegates can vote for

      ...whoever they want. Those are the rules you are bellyaching about now.

      The Democratic Party is allowed to pick a nominee any way it wants. The primary/caucus system itself of course is far from a pure democratic process, so you are chasing a mirage in the first place. Consider Nevada where votes out in the rural areas counted as much as ten times those in Las Vegas. Consider the basic unfairness of selecting which states go first. Consider the differences between primaries and caucuses, where the latter require hours of commitment to have one's voice heard, and the former merely requires a pull of the lever at one's convenience.

      If the rules committee or whatever it's called decides to seat FL and MI, then that's OK too. They make the rules. Obama supporters are clearly nervous about the unpledged delegates, to be sure, but their histrionics are a bit much.

      by jmknapp on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:23:51 AM PDT

      •  All that doesn't really matter

        This isn't about technicalities and rules, but about fairness, common sense, and maintaining some form of what can FAIRLY AND REASONABLY be conceived as a democratic process to pick our nominee.

        All technicalities aside, there is a reason why people have been given a vote. To dismiss those votes as meaningless (as the superdelegates solely selecting the nominee would do) would basically render the entire voting process moot.

        It would not ever, ever be acceptable to throw our votes in garbage, period. And I don't give a damn what the rules say.

        If you want to argue based on the rules set forth that this scenario would somehow be acceptable, fine. Just don't expect others to follow you, or pretend as if there is some sort of "reasonable" way to argue that it is ok for party elitists to decide what is best and override the voters. This is not acceptable, and the voters cannot and will not stand for it.

        by redhaze on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:43:06 AM PDT

        •  Look at it this way

          The pledged votes are not "thrown out," because unpledged delegates only come into play if the vote wasn't roughly equal to begin with.

          That's what I mean by histrionics.

          by jmknapp on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:15:51 AM PDT

          •  Oops

            I should say:

            "unpledged delegates only come into play if the vote is roughly equal to begin with."

            by jmknapp on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:18:45 AM PDT

            •  Well, actually, no...

              Unpledged delegates equal ~20% of the total delegates. So, unless you consider a 19% margin to be "roughly equal" than, well, no.

              Histrionics. Heh....

              by redhaze on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:24:16 AM PDT

              •  I'll doubt they wouldn't reverse

                ...a 20% margin. But at some low percentage they might, and that would be no less democratic than the process that led up to it.

                by jmknapp on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:36:46 AM PDT

      •  The Bitching Should Have Started

        at the moment those rules were made, not just before or after when the outcome made a difference to Hillary.

        Hillary is out for Hillary, and that's one major reason I voted for Obama.  Her mantra is win at all costs.

        Been there, done that, that's why we're in the mess we're in.

        by Hear Our Voices on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:57:24 AM PDT

        •  OK

          Same for the unpledged delegates then--no bitching only after you started getting nervous about Hillary leading among them.

          by jmknapp on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:34:39 AM PDT

      •  Histrionics? Superdelegates voting against

        the popular vote? So you approved of the Supreme Court having more of a voice than the people in Bush v. Gore in 2000? It is almost the same thing.

        by adigal on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:28:27 AM PDT

        •  That was an election

          ..., a national election, governed by the Constitution. That is not the same thing at all as a party nominating process, which has only an attractive gloss of a "real" election with actually very little accountability to any set code in how they select a nominee, constitutional or otherwise. As in, it's a free country--if two people want to form a political party, they can decide the nominee by armwrestling, and the government or whatever can't tell them otherwise.

          We saw this in the Nevada lawsuit, where the judge averred that the rules were unfair, but that the government had no cause to interfere with a political party's rules.

          by jmknapp on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:44:24 AM PDT

      •  ????

        

        by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:04:28 AM PDT

    •  "disenfranchisement" . . .

      being told your votes won't count in the election anyway.

      the candidates don't come to campaign in your state.

      the candidates you prefer aren't even on the ballot.

      there is an important and controversial property tax amendment on the ballot having the effect of motivating hundreds of thousands of wealthy property owners to cast ballots (many of them early ballots) who otherwise wouldn't have voted in what they had been told was nothing more than a "beauty contest", systematically skewing the vote away from the interests of lower-income renters.

      The bottom line is that the elections in MI and FL didn't even come close to the kind of democratic process the results of which we could have even a little bit of confidence represent the will of the people in those states.  People who are arguing that those elections should be allowed to determine the nomination are displaying a kind of anti-democratic cynicism that I frankly thought was the purview of Republicans.

      by Mother of Zeus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:29:41 AM PDT

      •  Aside from the fact that

        when this happened in the first place and the DNC made clear it had to do something, all the candidates agreed with their decision to not seat the delegates.

        THAT is the point that gets neglected in the argument of whether to change things now.

        The party had rules.  The rules were broken.  The party acted.  The candidates agreed to abide by the decision.

        One can argue upside down and backwards whether or not the decision of the party was right or wrong.

        But it doesn't matter because the candidates agreed to their decision.

        by arielle on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:25:57 AM PDT

        •  If no one had relied to the detriment of

          themselves or a third party on the rules, I would have no problem switching them back regardless of who agreed to them.  I'm not a "rules are rules" fetishist. Rules were made to be changed if they no longer serve their purpose, but the one big caveat is that you CAN'T change rules back if doing so would harm people who relied on those rules while they were in place.  

          They could call a special election now.  As far as I can see, although that would change the DNC rules that everyone agreed to, it wouldn't clearly be to the substantial detriment of anyone who relied on the earlier rules.  (I am sure that some people have died between then and now and now can't vote, but detrimental reliance needs to be subject to a sort of reasonableness or representativeness standard.)

          by Mother of Zeus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:00:41 AM PDT

    •  In fairness, then ...

      you have to acknowledge that the party also set up a system that includes superdelegates who could potentially make a decision that overrides those of the popular delegate count. (They won't, as I have said in comments all over here, but they could.)

      Both sides of this don't like the rules. It's a terrible system. But I can't help but notice many partisans on both sides mind only those rules that hurt their candidate.

      It's been interesting watching as an Obama-leaning voter but without any real vested interest in the race.

      by Magenta on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:33:15 AM PDT

      •  If Obama was doing this against Hillary

        I would feel the same way. Overriding the voice of the people is something the Democratic party does NOT want to be seen doing.

        I think I will even change to Independent if they do this, because between the FISA vote the other day, and now the possibility of this, I don't think the Democrats are what they pretend to be.

        by adigal on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:30:28 AM PDT

  •  Do you know anyone in Michigan?

    I know many people there. All of them wanted to vote for Obama or Edwards. But neither was on the ballot. Conventional wisdom over the water cooler was the election was a joke. No one feel like voting "other" out of spite, because frankly, they didn't have any spite at the time.

    Now, they have a shit-ton of spite.

    I say let's have new elections, in MI if not both MI and FL.

    by chicago DEM on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:22:41 AM PDT

    •  I was a Michigan voter

      And I did not vote undecided. I voted Romney, because the potential of a McCain presidency scares me to death. It still does.

      Yes, the election was a joke. Of course I would have voted on the dem. side if I thought it would matter. It did not at the time, and therefore it must not ever.

      Make it fair, give us a new election!

      by redhaze on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:24:55 AM PDT

  •  Michigan and Florida Democrats were told

    that their delegates would not be seated, Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot, so many people did not vote. Why should they have? I wouldn't have wasted time voting in something that didn't count!

    So it is fair to count the voted now? It is just absurd to count them.

    by adigal on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:27:00 AM PDT

•  No enfranchising only voters who vote for

  one candidate is dirty tricks.  Considering that she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan I have a real problem with this as do many.  People could not vote for another candidate.

  by WisconsinJessica on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:13:17 AM PDT

•  Why do you want to

  disenfranchise the superdelegates?  (of course you don't, but that's the next spin.)

  by bugscuffle on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:13:50 AM PDT

  •  I give that another week to ferment Bugs n/t

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:24:16 AM PDT

•  Remember...

  ...Clinton's support is wide, not deep.

  The "incendiary" steps she's pondering are only possible if she still has a bunch of superdelegates backing her, a proposition that seems less and less likely the more states that Barack Obama puts in his column.

  I, for one, am not particularly worried about Clinton engineering some nefarious deal that will hand her the nomination in defiance of the party.

  She either has to win the old-fashioned way, or she simply won't be President. It's that simple.

  by Devin on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:14:19 AM PDT

  •  I hope you are right

    My gut tells me that you are.

    However, if anyone can pull off a scorched earth-style victory within the party, my gut tells me it would be the Clintons.

    by redhaze on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:18:14 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    There is no nefarious deal in the works. She's just trying to keep some oxygen in her campaign.

    by Magenta on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:34:22 AM PDT

  •  I sincerely hope you are right.

    by DJShay on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:13:32 AM PDT

•  "incendiary" is editorializing in the article

  The Times should not have used that word... unless it was in a direct quote.

  by njhoo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:17:03 AM PDT

  •  You are right, it is editorializing

    I think it is also fair.

    The tactics the campaign would use are scorched earth politics. That is pretty clear.

    Thus, while it is editorializing, it is not spin.

    by redhaze on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:19:40 AM PDT

  •  You don't think it's "potentially incendiary"

    to override the magnitude of voter enthusiasm and passion for Obama through undemocratic means if Obama has won more primary and caucus votes?

    Frankly I think Nagourney could have dropped the word "potentially."

    by Torta on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:19:57 AM PDT

    •  I like Obama BUT

      it probably isn't incendiary to Hillary supporters.... if it is incendiary to some but not to others than it is a judgement to call it incendiary...

      as part of journalism, a writer is not supposed to insert or create opinion in a news piece.

      heck, i would be outraged if it happened....but this diary is built on the premise that the New York Times called this incediary which is one writer's opinion and not a quote from anyone as far as I can tell

      by njhoo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:23:52 AM PDT

      •  definition of "incendiary" is -

        is something like "sparking a flame or an explosion" or "arousing to action or rebellion."  Incendiary is not an opinion type of adjective, it is a what-would-happen, predicted-result type of adjective.  

        And the predictive likelihood of Clinton's action, if carried out, being incendiary to the point of altering the November outcome?  

        100%.

        by Torta on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:29:05 AM PDT

      •  Not exactly an opinion

        More like a forecast.

        Common sense says Hillary attempting to subvert the democratic process would, in fact, be incendiary.

        As for your idea that a writer is not supposed to insert opinion in a piece, I (as a published writer) am of the opinion that that is basically impossible. Writers have opinions.

        As opposed to hiding their opinions, writers should instead always strive towards the truth. Hillary attempting to acquire the nomination would   be an "incendiary" course of action. Not really an opinion, but more of a statement rooted in truth and common sense. There is a difference.

        by redhaze on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:29:17 AM PDT

    •  I think Mark Penn is right: it's all about

      delegates. Those are the rules we have been given by the all wise Dean and Brazile.
      You can't change the rules now.

      by BoringDem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:43:19 AM PDT

      •  WTF? Seriously,...

        surely you've seen the quote from a few months ago from Hillary that says she doesn't think the delegates should be seated. Except now she does. Talk about playing fast and loose with the rules.

        Guilty as charged: the ultimate flip-flopper.

        by QuestionableSanity on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:58:39 AM PDT

        •  Obama wanted the delegates from FL and MI

          to be seated. Did you forget that?
          Anyway, I was talking about superdelegates.

          by BoringDem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:34:13 AM PDT

  •  Boston Globe headline used same word n/t

    by rugbymom on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:10:56 AM PDT

  •  It's the Clinton Rules

    Clinton is fighting to win this election.  (That's what we want, right?  Democrats who fight.)

    The corporate media wants to call it for Obama.  They think it's over, and anything Clinton does from here out will be demonized.

    Hillary Clinton, flamethrower.

    I'm an Obama supporter, BTW.  I just hate the corporate media trying to tell us what is happening.  Let the voters vote and let the parties sort it out.  This type of factfree editorializing in the summary of a news article is not journalism.  

    They have an agenda, and it's not a Democratic agenda.

    by hockeyrules on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:37:45 AM PDT

•  Hillary will win by any means necessary

  Even if it means stealing the election and tearing the Dem party apart.  It's incredibly disturbing to me.  If she gets the nomination, the only way I may vote for her is by holding my nose.

  by davidkc on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:28:56 AM PDT

  •  If this, the 527 and the list-selling thing

    turn out to be true, any chance of a future donation or on the ground support from me falls through.

    I'll still vote for her, but I won't do it with any enthusiasm.  It'll be a firebreak against another conservative judge, nothing more.

    by Capt America on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:25:41 AM PDT

  •  How would she "steal" the election?

    Because more superdelegates vote for her? That's not stealing an election, sorry.
    It's funny that Michigan and Florida are punished for moving up their primaries, but Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were not.

    by skohayes on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:30:26 AM PDT

    •  Iowa, NH and S. Carolina are traditionally first

      They didn't change anything, just moved their dates to remain first.

      by adigal on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:37:23 AM PDT

•  Can't wait for the spin

  from the usual suspects.

  by arielle on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:29:50 AM PDT

•  I hate to be the voice of reason,

  but does anyone else here notice that we're about to execute someone for a murder they are RUMORED to THINKING about committing in THE FUTURE?

  I support Hillary Clinton. I voted for Obama. I will NOT vote for Clinton if she steals the nomination...but she HASN'T DONE IT YET, and from all the actual "facts" I've been able to determine the only thing they've actually DONE (as opposed to 'float' or 'think about') is call superdelegates -- just like Obama's campaign -- and cozy up to them. I fully expect the nomination to go to the leader in votes and pledged delegates, and if that isn't the case, there will most definitely be a groundswell of opposition and ill will, but the game is still on, and either candidate still has the potential to win fairly. Let's be wary, but let's not PLEASE start engaging in pre-emptive demonization...that's so Bush.

  by PBJ Diddy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:38:57 AM PDT

•  Oh puh-leaze. Will you EVER learn not

  to believe anonymous quotes from "adivsers"?

  by BoringDem on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:42:08 AM PDT

  •  okay: How about a non-anonymous source?

    But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

    by bugscuffle on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:45:21 AM PDT

    •  And John Edwards ...

      in it all the way until the convention. Campaigns say these things to keep some energy going and make it clear to supporters all is not lost.

      Unless she's going in with a near tie in pledged delegates, there's no way she's going to get the superdelegate support. And she is smart enough to know that.

      by Magenta on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:49:17 AM PDT

    •  If that happens, she will get The Call

      The Call that says that you cannot win this fight and if you continue to wage it,  you will lose and you will lose everything: Bill's legacy, your Senate seat, any hope of  being a major player in the future.  You will be remembered as the person who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and denied us the opportunity to take back our country.

      It may take more than one call, and it may go to both Bill and Hillary.  

      I don't think the major players in the party are blind to this issue.

      by Kascade Kat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:59:41 AM PDT

    •  Is that illegal?

      All this echo chamber whining about Michigan and Florida, superdelegates, "smoke filled back rooms" and all the other crap is just hysterics.
      Follow the rules in regards to MI and FL, but throw them out when it comes to the SDs?
      You can't have it both ways.

      by skohayes on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:35:36 AM PDT

      •  In both cases, voters need to be respected

        In Michigan, we had no choice and were told our votes wouldn't count. Hence, they shouldn't.

        Superdelegates should not decide this election, the people should.

        Where is the contradiction?

        Bottom line: The voters need to be respected.  No contradiction there. And I could give two flying fucks about some antiquated set of nominating rules.

        Let's use some basic common sense here...I think the right thing to do in both cases is pretty obvious. And I held these opinions way, way before I was aware of how either MI, FL, or SD's were going to swing.

        by redhaze on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:48:30 AM PDT

•  Calm down folks

  She can hold her breath till she turns blue (given her shitty voting record, that might be a good thing!)

  If we keep winning, it won't matter.

  by zonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:21:38 AM PDT