You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option To Overtake Delegate Lead

Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option To Overtake Delegate Lead


By sammy - Posted on 04 May 2008

Hillary Clinton's campaign has a secret weapon to build its delegate count, but her top strategists say privately that any attempt to deploy it would require a sharp (and by no means inevitable) shift in the political climate within Democratic circles by the end of this month.

With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an estimate.

Using the Rules and Bylaws Committee to force the seating of two pro-Hillary delegations would provoke a massive outcry from Obama forces. Such a strategy would, additionally, face at least two other major hurdles, and could only be attempted, according to sources in the Clinton camp, under specific circumstances:

First, this coming Tuesday, Clinton would have to win Indiana and lose North Carolina by a very small margin - or better yet, win the Tar Heel state. She would also have to demonstrate continued strength in the contests before May 31.

Second, and equally important, her argument that she is a better general election candidate than Obama -- that he has major weaknesses which have only been recently revealed -- would have to rapidly gain traction, not only within the media, where she has experienced some success, but within the broad activist ranks of the Democratic Party.

Under that optimistic scenario, some Clinton operatives believe she could overcome several massive stumbling blocks:

-- Clinton loyalists on the Rules Committee would have to be persuaded to put their political futures on the line by defying major party constituencies, especially black leaders backing Barack Obama. Committee members are unlikely to take such a step unless they are convinced that Clinton has a strong chance of winning the nomination.

Former DNC and South Carolina Democratic Party chair Donald Fowler -- a Hillary loyalist -- would, for example, face an outpouring of anger from South Carolina Democrats if he were to go along with such a strategy.

-- A controversial decision to seat the two delegations, as currently constituted, would be appealed by the Obama campaign to the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee.

The full make-up of the Credentials Committee will not be determined until all the primaries are completed, but the pattern of Clinton and Obama victories so far clearly suggests that Obama delegates on that committee will outnumber Clinton delegates. Obama will not, however, have a majority, according to most estimates, and the balance of power will be held by delegates appointed by DNC chair Howard Dean.

For the scenario to work, then, Dean would have to be convinced of Clinton's superior viability in the general election, and that she has a strong chance of defeating McCain next November.

One of the arguments the Clinton campaign is privately making to autonomous "super" or "automatic" delegates, as well as to delegates technically "pledged" to Obama as a result of primary and caucus results, is that the campaign shifted dramatically in roughly mid-February. At that point, Clinton supporters contend, the economy replaced Iraq as the dominant issue among primary voters, and that transition led to Clinton's successes in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

Clinton people also make the case that the past six weeks have seen examples of Obama's political vulnerabilities: his wife's "proud to be an American" remarks, the emergence of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, wider coverage of Obama's ties to 1960s radicals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, "bittergate," the flag pin imbroglio, and "hand on the heart" accusations -- all impugning Obama's patriotism.

* * *
The controversy over Michigan and Florida grows out of the decision of both states to flout national party rules prohibiting all but a few states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- from holding primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008. Michigan held its primary on January 15 and Florida on January 29.

On December 1, 2007, well before the contests were held, the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to refuse to seat either state's delegation at the August 2008 convention in Denver.

When the contests were actually held, none of the candidates actively campaigned in either state. In Michigan, Obama had his name taken off the ballot. Clinton "won" both contests.

The Obama campaign contends that the primaries in the two states were not legitimate, especially in Michigan where voters could not cast a ballot for Obama. Clinton "won" the Michigan contest with 55 percent, while 40 percent voted "uncommitted" and the remainder went to minor candidates.

Obama manager David Plouffe has argued that the only way to seat the Michigan delegation would be to divide the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama: "A 50-50 split would be fair."

Many Democrats, including DNC chair Howard Dean, believe it is critically important to reach some kind of compromise to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations in order not to alienate voters in the two battleground states, each of which could be pivotal in the November general election.

In the case of Florida, there are a number of proposals under consideration. One would be to seat the delegation as is, but give each delegate only one half a vote. Another would be to cut the number of Florida delegates in half.

Spokesmen for the Obama campaign declined to discuss their strategies for dealing with the May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, or to speculate on what they think the Clinton forces with try to do.

FTR, the article above, written by Thomas Edsall, was published today by the Huffington Post.

Frankly I don't think Clinton has any realistic shot at getting supers or any relevant major political players to abandon Obama, given what has happened so far.

The arguments listed above all are severely flawed.  For example, Clinton can't claim that Florida or Michigan should go to her - or would have gone to her.  As long as Edwards' and Obama's names were off the ticket, there goes her hypothesis.

Nor is Clinton likely to get all those delegates seated.  The best she can hope for are for them to be partially seated.  The DNC decision is likely to be influenced by two major factors:

1. The fact that they don't want to make FL and MI's citizens look disenfranchized. And will therefore look to make some concession/s.

2. The fact that they will likely impose some penalty for the deadline being ignored (to try and ensure against states defying deadlines in the future).

More below ...

 

 

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

Re: paragraph 2, Obama was on the ballot in Florida.

As far as Michigan goes, Hillary was on the ballot in Michigan against DNC recommendations, so I can't see how she can appeal to that very body for the votes cast there.

But I agree that the DNC is backed into a corner on this one and they'll probably try to make some concessions in hopes that they won't lose all hope of swinging Michigan or Florida in the fall. 

 

Right.  Obama was on the ballot in Florida (screwed up, meant to say that MI - not both states - didn't have Obama on the ticket).   Anyway, I still maintain the DNC will not throw all the delegates from either state, or both, Hillary's way.  No way.  The lady is living in a dreamworld if she thinks that will happen IMO.

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

Above, I had said that I don't think Clinton has any realistic shot at getting supers or any relevant major political players to abandon Obama, given what has happened so far.  What I meant was ...

The most harped on issue re: Senator Obama isn't a trangression that the Senator committed himself.  It is "sin by way of association".   He has come across as sincere about his message of unity on countless occasions throughout the past year.  It is likely one reason why Obama continues to pick up more supers than Clinton - even in the midst of the media circus, and that he is still competitive in the polls as it regards electability. 

 

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

Almost done LOL ...

There is something underlying this whole battle for the presidency that I believe - in my more optimistic moments - may lead to Clinton and McCain getting locked out of the race for good.

The "cult" appeal of Obama is likened to a brand of naive, hyper-liberal blind worship potion.  The "Messiah", is what many of his opponent's call him, sarcastically (and perhaps, out of jealousy).

But this "X Factor", IMO, is not brainless at all.  There seems to be a basic decency to this man; a gentleness and insightfullness, that isn't seen often in politicians running for a high office.  People see or sense a stark contrast to the narrow-minded, hard-headed, caustic style of leadership we've endured for the past eight years under George W. Bush.  It's not a Liberal thing. Conservatives and Moderates have grown sick of the wicked calcification of our leadership. 

Senator Barack Obama seems more accessible than the other cold and calculating dem. (Clinton), who seems to think more about herself, than others. In constrast, Barack comes across as more accessible than the dour, cynical McCain, who has "crossed the aisle" on more than one occasion, but has a temperament that startles and isolates his peers and the public alike.

A vote for Obama is one based partially on intuition; an intuitive sense that the man who seems to have a heart of gold, might just be a unifying, healing, welcome example of what a better America can be.  That doesn't seem cultish to me - it seems common-sensical. 

   

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

You know what I read the other day?

That Obama actually made one campaign stop in Florida (as you know, the rule for Florida was that candidates could have their names on the ballot but must not campaign in the state), so he technically violated the terms of the primary. Therefore, if anyone pursues the matter, he has to forfeit the state's delegates to Hillary. 

I've only seen this mentioned once, though, so I don't know if it's true. 

Interesting indeed.  Now I read that Clinton did the same thing, but I seem to recall she called it a "tour", or a visit, or some such thing.  Will try and find that article again.  Do you recall where you found the one you're talking about?  Would like to read that. 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

I can't find it. I thought it was the Hertzberg piece, but I re-read that one and it's not it. It's one of them that has to do with Hillary's "new math," but there have been hundreds of those by now.

Sarg, this is a perfect post.  It explains what so many see in Obama, and the hope for a better tomorrow that he represents.  I've often been told that I'm very intuitive, and I think what you stated, that intuition, was the very thing that first drew me to Obama.  And it is what keeps me firmly in his camp, no matter what.  Thank you for sharing these thoughts.

Aw shucks, you've made me blush :)  So what does your fine-tuned intuition tell you will happen next in this circus of a presidential race?  

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

Sorry, but my intuition only applies to people.  And my crystal ball is in the shop again. ;-)  But, looking into the tea leaves tells me that Obama will have a double digit win in NC and win a close one on IN.  Or is that my hope speaking?  Hmmmmm, hard to discern........;-)

Yeah, I know what you mean ... it's truly hard to tell!  The silly, fraudulent Sylvia Brown said Obama would win the whole race.  She said it before the the race had even started.

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

is that campaigning ? I don't think so, maybe thats why you haven't heard much about it from hillary.

Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."

Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that's the case, then we won't do it again."

 http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

 

well if they punish him for that, then... They clearly looking for excuses to give it to hillary.

As far as why we haven't heard more about this from Hillary, I'm increasingly getting the impression that she has a whole bunch of tricks up her sleeve that she's not going to pull until the meeting at the end of the month. She doesn't want to give away all her secrets just yet. 

I think she has something, (can I say "sinister?") up her sleeve too.  I read an article a few days ago, and cannot find it now, about an interview with Terry McAuliffe, who gave a definate date that this would be over.  June 15th.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  June 15th.  She stated this with a smug smile, according to the article.  When asked if Clinton was going to concede the nomination at that time, McAuliffe replied something to the effect of "Did I say we weren't going to be the nominee?" (definately paraphrased)  I remember the article setting off all sorts of alarm bells in my mind, as I wondered just what Clinton could be up to.  I dismissed it at that time, thinking I was seeing a conspiricy behind every bush.  lol  But now.....maybe not.  Did anyone else read something similar?

I didn't see that one but I read another one in which the author said that he wasn't at liberty to reveal specifics but that he left his interview with Hillary "very impressed" with their gameplan and their odds.

 

Although I think Hillary is a sinister, deceptive, and desperate person, it's doubtful she has anything too potent up her sleeve.   What do you think she could might have? 

On the other hand, it'd be just like a Clinton to posture as if she has something potent planned, just to try and win over the confidence of superdelegates.   And I wouldn't put it past one or more of her supporters to go along with the lie. 

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

I don't know what she could have.  Maybe nothing.  But I put nothing past her.  Maybe she thinks she can call in some political favors, or make some promises as far as appointments, etc.  Maybe she has "dirt" on some of the committee members.  Maybe, she really believes that the Clintons ARE the Dem party, and that her royal behindness should be crowned.  I don't know.  I just feel like something is up.

BUT, the good thing is, I honestly believe that the Dem party would heave a collective sigh of relief to rid themselves of the Clintons and their scandals, their outrageous behavior.  The party may see this as their opportunity to do just that. 

Just this once, in politics I would like to see good triumph over evil and power.

It seems like she's hinting that she has the payload of "uncommitted" superdelegates just waiting to come out of the closet to secure her nomination...but she's got to get the Florida/Michigan situation sorted out first.

Doubt it.  That's too brazen, even for her.  All that would need to happen is for just one of them to turn on her (believing her request to be unethical), and she could lose the whole nomination.     

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

Obama's ad was run nationally, which included in Florida.  So there was no direct advertising there on his part.

http://www.observer.com/2008/clinton-camp-its-obama-whos-breaking-florida-no-campaign-pledge

Not sure what the blogger's source was, in saying that Obama campaigned there.  I'll look that up in a sec.

Meanwhile, Hillary, as usual, appears to have broken the rules without "breaking" them. This is one of many links to a similar story:

 http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2007/12/hillary-clinton.html

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

She was asked about this early this morning on Fox, and she had a smug little "wait until you see what I have planned" grin on her face. If she succeeds, this will mean the end of the Democratic Party and will split the party. I am trying to keep hope, but I have a sinking feeling that with all of her connections that she will be able to steal it. Maybe I am just tired this morning.

She definitely has someething up her sleeve, but I'd be shocked if she can pull it off. She keeps trying and trying, thinking her next trick is just the thing. It reminds me of Bullwinkle:

"Heya, Rocky!! Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!!"

"Aw, Bullwinkle! That trick never works!" 

I sure hope you're right, Barbara.

Hillary on Fox..again?  The unholy alliance should tell us all something, in and of itself.  What was she asked, and by whom? 

I think it was Gretchen Carlson asking the questions, but I can't be sure. It was the typical love-fest. She was asked about rumors from inside her campaign about her getting all the delegates seated in MI and FL, to which she cackled, then said that they had no secrets (but she never answered the question). The the Fox announcers gushing love and affection said that if she was able to do that she would be in the lead by 55 delegates at this point. HRC just grinned and said she didn't want to disenfranchise voters.

<HRC just grinned and said she didn't want to disenfranchise voters.>

Except for those in caucus states!!!! 

They say that politics make strange bedfellows, but HRC and the neocons in bed together is about as strange as it gets!!!

Welcome to racist America.  I'm starting to think this really is about race. 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

Amen, Sarg....it's a sick statement on how little we have progressed. It reminds me of a friend I knew when I was in Atlanta. One day we were just talking at lunch about how little things had changed. He had lived in Chicago previously, and he mentioned that he felt safer in the South. I was surprised and asked why. He responded that at least in the South, you learn real quick how people feel, but in the North, they will smile to your face, and then stab you in the back after you turn around. <Disclaimer: I know this is a broad brush. I was only speaking in generalities>
pc, I read once where the Coretta Scott King (widow of MLK) said much the same thing, when questioned about her return to the south. 

Yup.  Harsh, but seems awfully true.  Much easier to deal with someone who shows you their true stripes from the beginning.  But even in the South, you have both types (the smilers as well as the growlers).  It just seems there are fewer of the smilers and more of the growlers. In the North there's some peer pressure to take that racist streak and shove it down in your pocket where no one can see it ... course it falls out every so often LOL.

Can still honestly say I think things have gotten better in the US, as far as race goes.  Even with all this media foolishness.  Obama would not still be a serious contender if that weren't so, I think.  The Supers - many of them, White - wouldn't still be gracing him with more support these days that Clinton.  Also, clearly it's not just Black support that he's getting.  Overall he has 50% of the Jewish vote (Dems).  He has 40-50% of the Latino vote, which is nothing to sneeze at.  He also has a Hell of a lot of White votes, in general. 

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

I agree with you to a point Sarg.  I am coming to believe that it is mostly about fear....Washington fears the change that Obama will bring to government.  That change will disrupt the politics of greed and corruption in both parties.  Of course, they can't say, or even imply, that to the voters.  So they use racism as a tool to get what they want, and to try to maintain their power and control.  Sadly, given the fears and misunderstandings where race is concerned, this is a very effective tool to use, as long as it is done subtly.  So I think it is about race in the voting booth, but about much more in the higher levels of party politics.

The good news is, very few people want to think of themselves, or of our nation, as racist (even when they are)  Hopefully, this desire to be better will overcome the seeds planted by HRC and the GOP.  I can only pray this is so.

I don't know.  My sense is that the "powers that be" see Obama as another politician ... after all, he is just that, albeit one who talks about a vision of reform in Washington.  Few people who've been in politics have reason to feel threatened that one man can act as a dictator under our system.  Much more likely, the system will change him.  That is the danger in his message of "change".  He hasn't clearly defined what that change is, but most on Capitol Hill know that Washington is a machine that one man can't control, no matter what sort of "change" he has in mind.  

My guess is, while a few fear him as a political force, more fear him as a social force.  What will "angry Blacks" want next?  What other minorities will come screaming in tow?    ... Okay, so maybe you're right after all, maybe he could be a force that sparks a change in the political climate (due in part, to his racial diversity).   Have just confused the Hell out of myself.  I think you're right.

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

I know it is in my state. And based on what I'm seeing on the boards, it is in a lot of other areas, too. If it comes down to "too old" versus "too black," I think America may side with the former, even if he's a bellicose, flip-floppering misogynist.

I don't think so.  Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

well hillary camp just confirm it's no secret they planning to go nuclear

 

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=7495

 

wow

I disregard any unconfirmable statements Hillary or her camp makes, as a general rule. 

All this talk about not "disenfranchising" the voters will likely not help her anyway.

In the end the voters voices may be heard, but the delegate total is likely to be cut back, because there needs to be some penalty set forth to deter other states in the future from flagrantly violating voting rules.  

The number of delegates alloted is also likely to be cut because Obama wasn't on the MI ticket.  This is not a straight-forward situation.  And I doubt she will get a clean "sweep", as she seems to want.  Plus ...

Timing:  These states don't have to be seated right away.  As the contest continues, it's possible for Obama to reach the "finish line" first once he has enough del.s/supers. The delegates he could get once FL and MI are added in, could bring him to the magical number before she has reached it. 

I'm just feeling better and better about this whole thing.

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a 2.5% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.