Five months after all Democratic candidates agreed Florida and Michigan wouldn't get delegates to the August presidential convention, Hillary Clinton now says they should--a reversal that would benefit her now that she has won both states, unchallenged, following Tuesday's Florida primary.But that, some Democrats fear, could ignite a racially charged fight rivaling conventions of the 1960s, should her contest against Barack Obama remain close to the end. . . .
With perhaps several hundred delegates at stake toward the 2,025 needed for nomination, the New York senator's position "could lead to the mother of all credentials challenges" for the Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention, said Tad Devine, an expert on the Democratic Party's nominating process.
If the number were enough to defeat Illinois Sen. Obama, who is trying to become the first black president, "the most loyal constituency in the Democratic Party"--African-Americans--"will feel that they've been shut out of the party," he added. "And that will have huge repercussions--not just at the presidential level, but in every race where African-American support can determine the outcome."
The DNC "penalized" Florida for moving up its primary and thus no delegates were to be awarded to any candidates. Apparently, according to what I heard last night, the candidates agreed to honor the move. But now, just like Al Gore in 2000, Hillary is wanting to change the rules in mid-stream. But even the most hardened of liberal pundits are getting fed up. As I watched a bit of MSNBC last evening, Keith Olbermann was visibly aggravated at what the Clinton camp was hinting at.
I like James Taranto's (to whom the h/t goes for this post) take on it:
If Mrs. Clinton does need Michigan and Florida to win the nomination, and she does wage a fight to honor their credentials, she will have behaved just as the Democratic Party and the Gore campaign did in Florida in 2000.Posted by Hube at January 30, 2008 07:50 PM | TrackBackHaving lost a heartbreakingly narrow election, Gore and the Dems sought to change the rules after the fact in order to provide him a margin of victory. But here's a crucial practical difference: The Gore gambit helped reinforce black voters' loyalty to the Democratic Party by playing on their fears of racist disfranchisement. What Mrs. Clinton is contemplating will be directed against a black Democrat. If she wins the nomination by playing this game, blacks may end up feeling that the Democratic Party is not loyal to them.
I am comforted by remembering that the last time the Democrats got side-lined into a mass delegate challenge at their convention it was 1972 and the nominee was George McGovern.
Posted by: steve Newton at January 31, 2008 09:35 AMWhy does the Democratic party seem so undemocratic? From the odd caucus rules to the super delegates to nullifying delegates of states that violate their arbitrary schedule, they seem determined to disenfranchise anyone who votes against the script.
Posted by: G Rex at January 31, 2008 09:53 AMBecause while they like to paint the Republicans as fascists, it is the Democrats who are the true authoritarians.
Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at January 31, 2008 10:42 AMOh, shit.....
Posted by: Mat Marshall at January 31, 2008 11:59 AMI've actually been told Jeff's comments by Democrats here in this state: that the GOP is far more open to new people and those who disagree with them than are the Democrats.
I can't speak to Democratic party rules, but the GOP requires that every registered Republican be eligible to be elected to the national convention every four years. The entire process has to be open to non-party activists coming in and offering themselves for election. Now, the odds of that happening are small obviously given human nature to stick with the people you know, but as we've seen the Democrats have a rigid policy of racial and sexual discrimination in their delegate process that shuts many people out from the start.
Posted by: Paul Smith at February 1, 2008 07:20 AM