Opposition Grows To Clinton's Delegate Cause Celebre

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/05/clinton-blame-f.html

May 22, 2008

Clinton: blame Florida GOP, not Ickes, Dems, me

Want to hear Hillary Clinton defend why she didn't speak up sooner when Florida Democrats had their delegates stripped away? Or Barack Obama explain why voters shouldn't be insulted that he would swoop into Florida to raise campaign money but not talk to voters?

Check out the audio of our interviews here.

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2008/audio/052108Dems/

Posted by Adam Smith at 6:50:21 AM on May 22, 2008

Adam Smith starts out the interview by saying to Hillary Clinton..."You're down here picking at the wound" and that "you were silent when they (the delegates) were stripped."

Hillary said she thought the Florida Dems had "very little choice or no choice" when this decision was made and that there should be "no penalty for Florida."

She further maintained that this must be solved soon in order for us to "have a unified party," and that the penalty should be aimed at the state party, not the voters." Then immediately pivoted and said she doesn't think "anybody should be punished."

Toxic
05.22.08 -- 10:28AM
By Josh Marshall

For the last week it's seemed that Sens. Clinton and Obama were adhering to their tacit truce, continuing the primary campaign but avoiding the harsh exchanges that make later party unity a dimmer and dimmer prospect. Clinton particularly had deescalated her rhetoric. Then we have a speech like Sen. Clinton's yesterday in Florida in which she compared the controversy over seating the Florida and Michigan delegates to the Florida recount debacle and many of the great voting and civil rights battles of the 20th century. She is of course also claiming that whatever the delegate count, she leads in the popular vote and that that is what really counts. Never mind of course that even if you count Michigan and Florida she's still not ahead in the popular vote without resorting to tendentious methods of counting.

I've always assumed, as I think most people have, that once the nomination is settled the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated. And I can see if Sen. Clinton wants to embrace this issue to claim a moral victory even while coming short of her goal of the nomination. As things currently stand, seating them would still leave Sen. Clinton behind in delegates.

But Sen. Clinton is doing much more than this. She is embarking on a gambit that is uncertain in its result and simply breathtaking in its cynicism.

I know many TPM Readers believe there is a deep moral and political issue at stake in the need to seat these delegations. I don't see it the same way. But I'm not here to say they're wrong and I'm right. It's a subjective question and I respect that many people think this. What I'm quite confident about is that Sen. Clinton and her top advisors don't see it that way.

Why do I think that? For a number of reasons. One of her most senior advisors, Harold Ickes, was on the DNC committee that voted to sanction Florida and Michigan by not including their delegates. Her campaign completely signed off on sanctions after that. And there are actually numerous quotes from the Senator herself saying those primaries didn't and wouldn't count. Michigan and Florida were sanctioned because they ignored the rules the DNC had set down for running this year's nomination process.

The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think this was a problem at all -- until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign.

more...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/196378.php