The delegate fight: The low road?

Posted: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:09 AM by Mark Murray

"A majority of Democratic voters say it would be unfair for Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the presidential nomination through the support of ‘super delegates’ if she lags among the convention delegates elected in primaries and caucuses, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. If that happens, one in five say they wouldn't vote for the New York senator in the general election."

Politico's Roger Simon gets Obama strategist David Axelrod to say some tough things about the Clinton campaign. "Is it possible to win the Democratic nomination in such a way as to make winning not worth it? The Barack Obama campaign thinks so. It thinks Hillary Clinton’s campaign is willing to take any road to the White House, including the low road. ‘They would do anything to win, and that means anything,’ David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, told me Monday. ‘There is a frenetic energy around them to commandeer this election in any way they can.’”

“Axelrod went on: ‘She is the ultimate Washington inside player. She is always asking, “How do we wire the vote? How do we wire the system to get the results we want?”’” More: "Another Obama senior aide told me he believed Clinton was willing to ‘destroy the party’ just as long as she ends up with the nomination.”

“I asked Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson for a response. ‘I think these apocalyptic quotes are unhelpful,’ Wolfson said. ‘I don’t envision that either side would destroy the party. There is a democratic process here to play out. This process is not over. There are still 10 [contests] left to vote. What is the fear here? Let’s let democracy run its course.’”

Florida pulled the plug on the mail-in primary.

Here’s some key timing on the Michigan re-vote plan. "The Democrat-led [state] House is scheduled to leave for a two-week vacation Thursday, so any bills to set up the do-over primary need to be brought up quickly. The measure also would have to be approved by the Republican-controlled state Senate. It would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

If the elected deligates from either state are seated, the Superdeligates from these states should be disbarred as punishment. After all, they, as much as anyone, are responsible for getting their state and the party into this predicament. if they are disbarred, it will not disenfranchise ANY voters in Florida or Michigan.

PEM59, Central Jersey (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:24 AM)

Clinton was willing to ‘destroy the party’ just as long as she ends up with the nomination.”

Of course she is. Her husband was quite willing to do that as well during his time in order to get his stuff passed. The super delegates remember this...

BL, Cincinnati OH (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:24 AM)

This kind of attitude in a candidate is not a help, but a hindrance, the "my way or the highway" arrogance that we see in Bush. And yes, she has stooped too low, damaged her party, her legacy - I wouldn't be surprised if she loses her seat in the senate come the next election. Policy wise, she won't win people over to enact policy with this underhanded attitude.
I honestly think she and Bill are scary, they are so shady. Where are tax returns, white house records (wouldn't she want to show them off?), and library funding? And there are so many weird deaths in their circles, like of many bodyguards! Scary people!!

I have heard so much about them dealing with the Saudis, and this must be true. Why so secretive?
Come out from the shadows and use that phone to call your accountant!!

Afraid to leave my name this time...... (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:26 AM)

If you don't think that the Clintons would destroy the party to get the nomination, then you must have had your head in the ground for the past year.

Jimmy CHICAGO IL (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:26 AM)

Note to Chuck Todd: Obama picked up 2 delegates in Illinois and Clinton lost 2. This was reported by Chicago public radio on March 13. Clinton didn't reach the 15 percent threshold on the south side of chicago. It was an oversight by the illinois board of elections.

The corrected total of pledged delegates out of illinois should be 106 for Obama to 47 for Clinton.
MSNBC still has the old total as 104 to 49.

You are not alone none of the major media outlets have picked up the story from Chicago public radio.

http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=19503

Clinton failed to reach the threshold of 15 percent on the south side of chicago costing her two delegates.

It was an oversight by the illinois state board of elections. The original count reported by the media was obama 104 delegates to clinton 49 delegates in illinois. The corrected count should be 106 to 47 for Obama.

This story was first reported on March 13th by Chicago Public Radio but the major media outlets have missed it.

Mitch (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:28 AM)

Your valediction doesn't make sense. If only one in five wouldn't vote for Hillary because of the "super delegate thing," then four out of five WOULD vote for her and that's called a MAJORITY.
Furthermore, who is David Axlerod to talk to about people "doing anything" to win this nomination? The Obama camp reached out to people OUTSIDE of The Democratic party to in an attempt to win The DEMOCRATIC nomination. What kind of garbage is that? Independents have no right whatsoever telling me who MY party's candidate should be.
Tell you what; how about we do a poll on the number of already registered Democrats who will not vote for Barrack Obama under any circumstances. The Pew Research Center estimates it to be as much as 25% of the party's base.
If we lose those voters, we lose the election. Cut and dried.
The super delegates are part of the rules; just as much as denying Democrats in Michigan and Florida their say in picking who our candidate is, because of their decisions to move up their primaries.
So I don't want to hear any crying about super delegates from people like David Axelrod. Maybe Mr Axelrod should be more concerned about insuring that everyone gets a chance to particiapte in this process, instead of cherry picking who's right to vote he wants to protect.
Can we have more coverage of the Rezko thing please?
Recent developements indicate Middle Eastern/Islamic money may be involved in that joint land deal between The Rezko's and The Obama's. Would be nice if this story were vetted properly.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:32 AM)

This is why Hillary has lost so much support during the primaries. I, for one, a life-long democrat will sit home in Nov and NOT cast a vote for the first time in my life rather than vote for her. I have lost all respect for both of them during this campaign and do NOT want to see her in the White House; however, I will NOT vote for McCain either.

Diane from Illinois (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:33 AM)

I do not like the way the Clinton team of Bill and Hillary operate. Their public standing is much lower than pollsters postulate. They carry very heavy baggage and Hillary is dull, boring, self-serving, and prone to employing dirty tactics to get her way.
Under no circumstaces would I lower my moral standards and cast a vote placing Senator Clinton and her nefarious husband Bill back in the White House where they do not belong.
As as adament anti-war Democrat with serious leftist proclivities this decision is not an easy one, but I would not want to shoulder the moral responsibility of endorsing Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy direction.

Joseph Stockett, Indianapolis, Ind. (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:44 AM)

If hillary through the underhanded,decietful,and skilled shady attemps to control what she feels is her god given right to be president wins this primary I will gladly vote for McCain. At least maybe the Clinton dynasty and the women who feel so entitled at this point will realize that this is NOT
the way to make your point and besides nobody likes bullies and the clinton and alot of women buy into it for pure emotional reasons and not the good of the country..BYE BYE Billery

gary vermont (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:45 AM)

gary vermont (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:46 AM)

Your valediction doesn't make sense. If only one in five wouldn't vote for Hillary because of the "super delegate thing," then four out of five WOULD vote for her and that's called a MAJORITY.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:32 AM)

Yeah, except for that is 20% of Democrats won't vote for her if she steals the nomination. You can't win if 0% of Republicans vote for you, and only 80% of Democrats vote for you. Even your logic fails to reconcile that.

CitizenJ (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:54 AM)

Does anyone have any doubt that Clinton would (and probably is trying to, as we speak) take the low road? Thus the monster comment, which was right on the money.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:55 AM)

HILLARY SPEAK:SHAME ON ALL YOU DEMOCRATICS FOR THINKING THAT I PLAY BY THE RULES.I LIKE TO MAKE UP MY OWN.SHAME ON ALL YOU DEMOCRATICS FOR NOT KNOWING THIS!

RENEA,PLYMOUTH,MI (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:57 AM)

Diane, I agree with you on one point. I cannot vote for Hillary nor McCain, yet I will go to the polls and help all the other Democrats running in my state. Yes, she will assure a loss in November and it is truly a shame. The Democratic party needs to show some backbone and turn this around NOW and stop the bleeding. The Clintons are instilling fear in the older voters and playing the race card with all their surrogates. I can attest to this first hand with my 82 year old mother in Florida. She is terrified of an Obama presidency. They are truly manipulating the "Older, Jewish, lifelong Democartic voter". The only cirsis Hillary handled in the White House was handled with lies and no class....If she knew so much about national security and affairs of the state, how did she not know the affairs of her house..????? Yeah, a vast right wing conspiracy.. well, she certainly played RIGHT into their hands. Is this how she will handle future problems with deceit and lies? She could be a really powerful senator, maybe even Senate Majority Leader one day if only she could show some sense of decency and class and realize she cannot win without disenfranchising half of her party. Whe will not cannot win in November. It will be slam dunk for McCain...... : (

Jessica, NC (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:59 AM)

If Hillary gets the Dem. nomination ill be casting my vote for Nader 08. This is disgusting its not going to be finished until the last votes are counted. Do you think that Obama would have stayed in the race as long as Hilary has if he was down by as much as she?...he would have done the noble, and right thing for the Dem party and provided unity by droping out. Not Hilary 08!!

Dissapointed in 08 (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:07 AM)

HILLARY IS A CHARLATAN --- THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS BETTER REIGN HER IN BEFORE SHE DESTROYS THEIR CHANCES IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

HILLARY IS A CHARLATAN (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:11 AM)

How can a candidate discredit the election process of several states and still believe to get that same vote in the general.

Most of us here enjoy a good political debate but this isn't one of them. Policy and rules have to come into play eventually. That said, she can't win.
To say...unless.... is to either to just continue the argument or to ignore the established rules to create the desired outcome.

This isn't democracy anymore, it something else and ti's something less. And we have the Clinton's to thank for that.

Dr.Strangedog, MI (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:11 AM)

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com
Obama has got to be thinking, 'can you all just shut up'. This guy had the election, and I mean November, in the bag but nobody in his camp can seem to keep their mouths shut. It's pretty hard to fire your wife and stay married too her at the same time.

twocanpete (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:13 AM)

At this point Hillary can not win the nomination with the votes of super delegates. So the votes of the people do NOT matter to her. Hillary is telling us that our votes do not count.

Enrique, Chicago (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:17 AM)

I have tried very hard to be supportive of both candidates during this primary election process, thinking they both had different skill sets they could bring to the presidency. I also under no circumstances wanted a Republican in office after the last disasterous seven years. When Senator Clinton threw Obama under the bus right before Ohio and Texas, I was just...done. Obviously I am not alone in that thought process. I am disgusted that a candidate would put her personal ambition before the party as Ms. Clinton so obviously has done.

Pam OC,CA (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:19 AM)

The democratic party caused this problem. one side said don't vote early. The Florida democrats did it anyway. If the democratic national commitee was unwilling back up what they were saying they should have kept their mouths shut. Now, everybody is concerned about how to fix it. Here's how. Either the National party is in control or the Florida party is in control. Decide which is in charge and stick by what they say. Stop waffling like little children. Just do it. Stop whining and move on.

Joe Usabuymart.com (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:28 AM)

Oh --- Here is the Band Wangon. A band Wangon that I am not jumping on. I say Hillary for president '08

You need to stop the Band Wagon and look more into Rezko- Obamas full releash of his 8 years of taxes,which was said he did.No, he didn't bit's a peices. Rev,J wright Let's talk about picking the cherry tree. Hillary '08

Ryan Ind (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:32 AM)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY - You had better be a little nicer to independents - You are going to need our votes when it comes to the general election! I personally don't think it's fair we are stuck with who Democrats and REpublicans vote for! It limits my choices. Oh, but that's right, you guys only care about your rights.

New Independent (Sent Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:07 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=778119