DNC Will Seat MI and FLA Delegates on Credentials Committee

Short diary.  I haven't seen it diaried yet but I think it can be very important.

Apparently, in a surprise move, the DNC has stated that they are willing to seat MI and FLA delegates on procedural committess.  Of course, a committee like the Credentials Committee can end up being quite substantive, particularly with the way things may be shaping up.

According to Politico, this has taken both campaigns by surprise.

More after the flip...

From the Politico article by David Kuhn:

But the mere presence of Florida and Michigan on the credentials committee raises the prospect of vote-trading or last-minute maneuvering, creating potential confusion for a convention already shadowed by procedural controversies.

Senior advisers to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as several party rules experts with experience from prior presidential campaigns, expressed surprise when informed of the DNC’s stance.

According to Ben Smith, this could very well inure to HRC's benefit by being:

something that could, in theory, give Hillary a boost in procedural battles.

 Smith

The article also gives the sense that things are not quite organized at the DNC. As seen below, there is the sense that this may further roil up murky waters than clear them.  I, of course, have no idea what is going on behind the scenes but it is a bit disquieting to read:

It’s possible that the DNC’s interpretation of the rules will be moot if a compromise is struck to seat the delegations. Chairman Howard Dean and members of Florida’s congressional delegation met privately Wednesday and issued a joint statement saying, "We are all committed to doing everything we can to ensure that a Florida delegation is seated in Denver."

But the decision to seat the two states on the Credentials Committee, prior to any compromise, further clouds an already Byzantine process for determining whether or not delegations from Florida and Michigan will be seated at the convention.

I don't want to start hyperventilating but this strikes me, at the moment, as being a strange unilateral decision by the DNC.  Hopefully it won't come to be an important maneuver...perhaps they are hoping that things will be over by the time of the convention.  The article also points out that a compromise on the delegates could change the situation.  Still, I could see this becoming VERY important and wanted to make sure that the KOS community has seen this.  I have not yet seen it reported here.

•  Important line from article

  Under the DNC's interpretation of the rules, Florida members of the credentials committee would not be allowed to vote on the question of whether to seat Florida's delegates to the presidential nominating process.

  by slinkerwink on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:04:54 AM PDT

  •  good eye...

    now every one of use too lazy to follow the link can breathe easier....

    by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:09:18 AM PDT

•  Tips for hyperventilation

  Strikes me as quite outrageous.  Maybe y'all will give me reasons to calm down.

  by mayan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:05:25 AM PDT

  •  look at comment above

    by slinkerwink on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:06:46 AM PDT

    •  Thanks, slinkerwink...

      I needed that.  I'm actually not hyperventilating...this maneuver just strikes me as being very odd.  Particularly since it seems to have been made without input from the campaigns.

      by mayan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:08:55 AM PDT

  •  No way

    FLA and MI won't be allowed to take part in the decisions concerning their own states. That's again DNC rules. You don't need to worry.

    by Fairy Tale on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:08:14 AM PDT

•  Something needs to happen

  I'm sick of my state being used as a pawn by the Clinton campaign who agreed to the rules (and even helped make them) and never said anything about how important it was to county Michigan until well after Hillary had won a Soviet-style primary with only her name on the ballot. Lest anyone forget: it was so obviously a sham that there was a public media blitz to plead and beg and cajole Obama and Edwards voters to vote for the "uncommitted" slate which obviously had little effect. The funny thing is, I also remember when Hillary getting "only" a bit over 50% was considered a loss in the post-Michigan primary media coverage. Most times, when you are the only on the ballot you'd hope to get a lot more than just over half the vote!

  by Joe Willy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:08:34 AM PDT

  •  I feel the same about Florida. nt

    by rian90 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:44:58 AM PDT

•  I can't be bad...

  if Dean came up with the idea...if it was floated by Hillary it would be an....EVIL idea...

  by dvogel001 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:10:53 AM PDT

•  All the more reason why Obama needs to close the

  deal by the time of the PR primary, if not sooner.  He has to bring PA down into single digits--preferably to the 5-7% range.   If he can do that, win NC big, get a near draw in IN, and be competitive in WV and KY, he should be able to do so.

  Ideally, he could win PA and remove all doubt, but I'm not currently expecting it to occur.  He definitely needs to keep accumulating SD's, and a mega-endorsement from the likes of Carter or Gore wouldn't hurt.

  I still have little doubt that Obama will ultimately be nominated.  My big fear is a debilitating struggle that persists through the summer.

  by RFK Lives on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:13:54 AM PDT

  •  Yes...

    I'm hopeful that things are decided by the Convention.  I get the sense they will be.  I just hate to open avenues that the HRC team can seize upon...because we know that they will seize upon anything and everything.  I also hate to see backsliding when it comes to the FLA and MI issue.  It's not like adding delegates to the credentials committee "empowers" the voters of FLA or MI.

    by mayan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:18:04 AM PDT

•  Issues to take into account with FLA and MI

  I am convinced that the Obama and Clinton campaign will reach an agreement that will have the delegations seated long before the convention.

  The 50-50 split won't be accepted for FLA, but it will for MI, both for delegates and for popular vote measures.

  The agreement will need to be reached on how many more delegates Clinton gets from FLA. The popular vote will be taken as it is now. This won't be an issue for the Obama campaign. But I think that the superdelegates in MI and FLA will hurt to a greater extent the delegate count for Obama so he will demand something creative in this respect, like halving both delegates and superdelegates from both FLA and MI.

  by Fairy Tale on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:17:32 AM PDT

•  I've been saying for a month

  that Obama should get ahead of this and offer a proposal that benefits her but doesn't give away the whole store.  

  With this development, there is no reason for her to take any damned deal, and it would look like Obama was trying to get in before the convention.  

  He should have done this weeks ago.  I'm upset.  

  by 57andFemale on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:21:28 AM PDT

  •  No matter what happens with FL/MI

    Obama knows at this point that he'll win.  It's much more in his interest to let the delegates get seated AFTER the primaries though.

    That way Clinton can't point to the delegate numbers as too close in such a way that could influence the upcoming primaries.  Right now, it looks like she is significantly behind (but would catch up significantly when FL/MI are counted).

    It seems like good strategy for Obama to also allow the status of the FL/MI delegates to remain ambiguous until after the primaries and then have the supers faced with the decision of choosing who's ahead.

    Again, the perception that he's very much ahead of Clinton now is helping him and hurting her.  Even if this gap closes after the primaries, he'll still be ahead and the supers will have to recognize that.

    by masterxi43 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:38:28 AM PDT

    •  not true

      It is quite possible that the seating of FL and MI delegates on the credentials committee will make the difference between them ruling to seat the delegates or not.  Now, imagine that Michigan selects largely Clinton supporters for the 55 uncommitted delegates - the party leadership is very pro-Clinton.  Do the math with FL and almost all the michigan delegates going to Clinton and suddenly the pledged delegate race is essentially tied.

      Will it happen that way?  Who knows.  But this move by the DNC makes it a real possibility, not a tinfoil hat scenario.

      by eparrot on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:47:48 AM PDT

      •  If this happens

        I suspect that Obama will already enjoy the majority support of the superdelegates and the whole thing will be moot.

        I still maintain that his stance to keep the lead in pledged delegates serves him well now and will not cause him harm later.

        by masterxi43 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:59:08 AM PDT

•  She's always said she'd take it to the credential

  committee, so I'm surprised that her campaign is "surprised".  

  Obama should have been in front of this, damn it.  

  by 57andFemale on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:22:50 AM PDT

•  More uncertainty and FUD...

  Uncertainty about FL and MI helps Clinton automatically and hurts the Dem Party in terms of reputation, so I take a skeptical view of this bit of news.  I'll wait to hear something from the DNC before I start banging my head on the desk.  Again.

  by cfaller96 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:23:14 AM PDT

  •  Probably a wise course of action...

    I just wanted to get it before this august body, albeit somewhat breathlessly.  Besides, Politico is generally pretty straight up on news items.

    by mayan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:29:58 AM PDT

•  How's that supposed to work?

  DNC Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention

  VII. STANDING COMMITTEES ON PLATFORM, RULES, AND CREDENTIALS OF THE
  2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION

  B. Election:

  1. The members of the standing committees allocated to the states and territories shall be elected by each state’s National Convention delegates present at a meeting of which adequate notice of time and place shall be given and at which a quorum of the states’s delegates shall be present. Such meeting shall be held in accordance with procedures approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and consistent with this Call. Such meeting shall take place within 14 days after the final selection of a state’s delegation, but no such meeting shall be held after June 21, 2008.

  But if the state doesn't HAVE a recognized delegation to the National Convention, how do they elect committee members?

  Note that the Appendix D of that document clearly shows that Florida and Michigan have been allocated 0 (zero) members on the committee(s).

  by jacortina on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:39:19 AM PDT

•  Dean said they will be seated..

  That does not mean they will be seated based on the primary results or that they will even have a vote. Here in Florida, we always believed they would end up seating the delegates, but either with a 50/50 split or a half a vote.

  I am not extremely worried. Even if they do put a Florida and Michigan delegate on the credential committee, which would be rather silly, my guess is with all the garbage going on, we might be surprised at how these individuals in both states feel about the situation.

  Not only that, but quite possibly, this could all be decided before the convention. It sounds like that is what Dean and many of the superdelegates want.

  by rian90 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:47:44 AM PDT