"People have been trying to get me out of this race since Iowa...my political obituary has yet to be written..."

"It's not over until the votes are cast. It's not over until there's actually a tally that gives someone the nomination."

 -- Hillary Clinton on the campaign jet, June 2, 2008

Hillary Clinton is right, morally and legally.

I'm a person who likes to deal with facts.  So let's review some.

FACT: Superdelegates don't have votes until the convention. Until then, they have preferences.

FACT: The Clinton campaign reserved its right to appeal the RBC's Michigan decision to the Credentials Committee. A favorable outcome of that appeal will change the number of delegates needed for the nomination.  Until that appeal is heard, no one should be declaring victory based on 2118.

FACT: Barack Obama literally stole 59 delegates in Michigan: 4 from Hillary Clinton and 55 from Uncommitted, a legally recognized presidential status.  In a tactical error, Obama took his name off the ballot, and now a handful of political hacks at the DNC have set aside fundamental principles of election and constitutional law to effectively reverse his voluntary action.

FACT: These same RBC hacks lecture us disenfranchised Democrats about playing by the rules, but only when the rules favor Obama. (Case in point: the rules give my candidate Hillary Clinton the absolute right and authority to stay in the race and to take her case to the convention floor no matter how many superdelegates "declare.")

FACT:  Caucuses are unfair.  If Michigan delegates can be re-allocated using hokey-pokey methods, certainly it would be reasonable to use the results of actual primary elections in states which had caucuses  to "correct" the delegate tallies so that they are a fairer reflection of the peoples' will.

FACT: Hillary Clinton has won more popular votes than Barack Obama. And, yes, that includes Michigan. You can't have it both ways -- if Obama wants delegates from Michigan, then the popular vote counts.

FACT: Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate -- by miles -- against John McCain. She has assembled a demographic coalition that has a 100% chance of winning the Presidency for the Democratic Party. She can win crucial states in the general election like Florida and West Virginia that Obama doesn't have a prayer of winning.

FACT: Hillary Clinton still out-polls both Barack Obama and John McCain in Electoral Vote surveys even in a climate of overt misogyny and sexism, even though the media has stopped treating her like a contender, and even in the face of criticism by officials in her own party for continuing to participate in the election.

FACT: Barack Obama's momentum has been sliding downhill since February, even though he has enjoyed the most lopsided media coverage of any presidential candidate in history, and even though he has spent more money, up to 4 times the amount, on advertising than Hillary Clinton. There is no indication that Obama's trajectory will recover anytime soon, especially not given the treasure chest of ammunition he and his wife have produced for the GOP and 527's.

FACT: Barack Obama -- the candidate who promised to transcend race -- threw the race card around in this campaign without shame and with no apparent regard for the long-term consequences to the reputations of two loyal public servants, the Clintons, or the long-term impact on society.

FACT: Barack Obama, if not directly, suggested that white voters who chose Hillary Clinton over him by 30 and 40-point margins in some states did so because of racism, when HE is the one hanging out and praying with his group of racist friends and preachers.

FACT: A huge portion (some polls say up to 50%) of Hillary Clinton supporters would not vote for Barack Obama in the general election, regardless of whether Clinton endorses him or campaigns for him.

FACT: Hillary Clinton will not only be a superior general-election candidate for the Democrats, she will be the best President our country could elect during these perilous and serious times.

On behalf of millions of Hillary Clinton supporters, I want to be sure that she knows where we stand.

FIGHT ON, Hillary. For the people.

Cross posted at TexasDarlin

There's more...

"One final word....Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee."

-- Harold Ickes, Hillary Clinton Campaign representative, Washington, D.C., May 31, 2008

Saturday, the Democratic Party's Rules & Bylaws Committee (RBC), in a surreal act of political suicide, awarded Barack Obama 55 "uncommitted" delegates from the Michigan primary, even though he voluntarily removed his name from that ballot in a tactical move to curry favor with the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

As Ickes noted, "uncommitted" is a constitutionally recognized presidential status, the same as a named candidate, and therefore delegates earned by "uncommitted" cannot legally be reallocated to another candidate.

But the RBC didn't stop there. They also STOLE 4 delegates earned by Hillary Clinton in the Michigan primary, and transferred them to Barack Obama, as if punishing Clinton for winning an election that Obama boycotted.

Then the RBC had the audacity to call their ruling a "compromise" and cloak it in sugary calls for party "unity." Trying to shove unity down the throats of 18 million angry Democrats, a bit of a joke...Message to the RBC: See videotape of Harriet Christian from Manhattan, voter who was ejected from your meeting. That should give you a flavor of our reaction and a taste of what to expect in August, in Denver.

More from Ickes' closing statement on Michigan, which is already written into history:

"This is in the charter, this is not a bylaw..this is in the highest document of our party.. this is in the constitution of our party....fair reflection..you cannot take delegates from one candidate and give them to another..."

~interrupted by raucous cheers~

"Finally...there's been a lot of talk about party unity...let's all come together, wrap our arms around each other...I submit to you, Ladies and Gentlemen, that hijacking 4 delegates.... is not a good way to start down the path of party unity."

It's ironic, given his unique history, that Barack Obama would seek to benefit from an election in which his name was not on the ballot, especially since he removed it voluntarily. If anyone understands the importance legally of being on the ballot, it should be Obama...

In 1996, when Obama first ran for public office in Illinois, he employed a cut-throat gimmick of challenging petition signatures to knock long-time community activist Alice Palmer off the ballot for the state Senate. There is much more to the story, but the bottom line is that Palmer had been a mentor and supporter of Obama's before he steam-rolled over her in his eagerness to serve the public. Ms. Palmer, not surprisingly, campaigned for Hillary Clinton this year in Indiana.

Seems like the party elite and the hope-change candidate are clueless when it comes to "unity." But us regular folks have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done in Denver to unify the country.

Note on the Popular Vote: The silver lining for Clinton from the RBC's ruling is more like platinum: Now that the Michigan and Florida primaries have been "recognized," Clinton is justified in adding those votes to her popular vote total. At the end of the primaries on June 3rd, Clinton will be the official popular vote leader, even excluding Michigan. If memory serves me correctly, it wasn't so long ago that party officials such as Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Donna Brazile were touting the popular vote as the appropriate metric for super delegates to certify the "will of the people."

Cross posted at TexasDarlin

TexasDarlin, all rights reserved
Not affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign

There's more...

Was this organized or what? Hillary's most extreme supporters are not taking the Rules Committee's decision with any kind of good sportsmanship. For instance:

This must bring joy to Harold Ickes' heart as he and Hillary threaten a push toward the Credentials Committee.

Does Hillary have pride in this kind of support? Will she get anywhere with the "popular vote" argument? Obviously, as the Puerto Rican primary goes down today, she thinks she will, delegate totals or not.

It's interesting that hurricane season starts today... we're about to have a political hurricane which could blow over some media trees. But remember... after a hurricane life goes on. We patch things up here and there and go forward with our lives.

I don't think Obama is too worried.

Under The LobsterScope

There's more...

...or why Obama is going to get what he needs tomorrow.

If you knew nothing about the style of the two remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination, you could learn everything about that just by watching how they handle the rules committee meeting.  

Clinton is a fighter.  She concedes nothing as she strives for the best possible outcome.  It can be ugly to watch sometimes as arguments are abandoned and others that contradict the previous ones are suddenly promoted, but if you're not paying the kind of close attention that we political junkies do, it's not that big of a deal.  By attacking and attacking, she is an exciting person to support.  There's always a new line of attack and coming up with arguments to support the position keeps supporters energized.

Obama, on the other hand, talks about unity and compromise.  There's always lip service given towards trying to see the other party's position and view, even when you're rejecting it.  It can sometimes come across as fake, and it makes it difficult for him to be a hardliner when he needs to be.

While neither approach is superior all the time, the Florida situation shows why I prefer the compromise model as a way of winning.  Clinton has been all about the press release and the conference call, the statement of moral purity and the over the top analogy.  "Count the votes!" "The election should count!" 

Obama's stance has been more nuanced.  Yes, these elections were obviously flawed by the way they happened, but let's see if we can find some way of getting the delegates seated in some fashion.  Here's what I'd prefer but maybe we can find another approach.

It's the nuance that's the reason that Obama is going to be happier tomorrow than Clinton is.  While Clinton's arguments have a clarity, ultimately they're severely flawed by an elephant in the room - the elections in Florida and Michigan were obviously flawed in many ways - no campaigning, voters told ahead of time that they wouldn't count, etc.  

The fight approach means that you have to ignore all evidence against your position.  You can't say that the elections were suboptimal because it undermines your case that this is disenfranchising.  However, that only works if you're arguing with people who already agree with you.  It doesn't move others to your point of view.  Ask someone in the Clinton camp about the irregularities of the primaries and they change the subject or question the premise that there was anything odd with them.  That can work with people who are vaguely following the news, but there's no way that that can convince a member of the rules committee who has been studying this situation for months, trying to find a way of resolving this.

That's the paradox.  By being willing to concede points, Obama actually makes his case stronger.  Showing an ability to understand your opponents point of view is the only way that you can ever find a way of coming up with an argument that will convince them.  Compromise looks weaker than fighting, but if you do it right - and Obama is an expert at just that - it'll produce the desired result far more often than not.  If you want to know why people think Obama will be a great President, watch his team tomorrow.  He'll give ground, make it so Florida and Michigan can walk away feeling like they've accomplished something, and yet still will get what he needs.  I look forward to seeing him try those methods on Congress.

Note: Mistersite made a good point in the comments that Obama is bargaining out of strength here. That's true now, but back in February it was far less so. Clinton could have scored delegate gains from the elections or managed a revote in Florida, but again her unwillingness to compromise led her to constantly suggest the solution that the voters had spoken and the votes should be counted exactly as is. Not only did that not get her a single delegate but it was the reason a lot of people moved from, "I'll take either candidate," to being in Obama's camp.

There's more...

Inter-party debates aside, it is time that the Democratic party rise to the expectations of the voters.  This is my letter to the DNC Rules Committee urging them to seat the delegates in Michigan & Florida.  This is not about candidates, but about how much we as Americans value our right to vote.

"Dear Sir or Madame:

I am writing today as a concerned citizen that wishes to see the higher moral ground of the Democrats preserved in light of the mistakes in Michigan & Florida.  I know this issue is complicated, and that the stakes are high for the two candidates seeking the party nomination, but this question of votes is much more fundamental to who we are as Americans, and it demands your careful and thorough consideration.

In the United States of America, when votes are cast by citizens, they are then counted and acted upon accordingly.  Our Democracy has always stood by this basic and righteous approach to government.  Well, until the failed votes of Florida in 2000.  That travesty of Democracy lead to the election of George W Bush.  The GOP is a willing advocate for disenfranchisement of voters.  The play book the GOP uses to win elections is vastly different from that of the Democratic party.  We stand by our voters, listen more keenly to their opinions, and count their votes!  As surely as Al Gore fought to have votes counted in 2000, we should now respect every vote cast in this primary race.  If we are truly the party of change, and believe ourselves deserving of winning in November, then we must stand by the voters who cast ballots in good faith and out of respect for their civic duty.  Inasmuch as the GOP stands for the calculated disenfranchisement of voters, the Democratic Party must lead to the future as the party that hears every voice, and counts every vote!

There's more...