Print
The Judgment of Solomon by Raphael
Everyone remembers the famous parable of Solomon, who faced with two women arguing over who was the mother of a baby ordered that the baby be cut in two and half given to each mother. Whereupon the real mother said, “Give her the baby, but do not kill him.” Solomon, of course, knew then the woman who wanted the baby to live was the real mother.
The Democratic National Committee’s decision to give the Michigan and Florida delegations half a vote because both violated the rules by scheduling their primaries early, smacks of Solomon threatening to cut the baby in half. Unfortunately, neither of the two candidates fighting over this “baby” stepped up and pleaded with Solomon not to kill the baby. So now we have a mess.
The un-Solomon-like decision has left no one happy, particularly not the supporters of Hillary Clinton, who believed those delegates belong to them. But the rules were clear–or were they? By now everyone thinks they have heard the story: the DNC stated in 2005 that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina could hold primaries before the first Tuesday in February. They also know that the originator of this rule was Terry McAuliffe, who, as everyone knows became chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and is now arguing against his own rule.
The best discussion of what actually happened is at the George Washington University web site. Here is the official DNC recommendation from the DNC web site:
- Preserving the first-in-the-nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire but adding other states in the pre-window period.
- Adding 1 or 2 new first-tier caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, and 1 or 2 new primaries between New Hampshire and the opening of the window for all other states on February 5, 2008.
- Having the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee determine which states should be added, using the following criteria: racial and ethnic diversity; geographic diversity; and economic diversity including union density.
In a March, 2006 letter the DNC specifically invited states to apply for the additional early contests. States that applied included Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. Florida did not apply.
At the DNC spring meeting, each state was invited to submit their pitch. After several months of haggling the DNC decided to recommend there be one caucus state and one primary state added to Iowa and New Hampshire. On August 19, 2006, Nevada was added as the caucus state and South Carolina as the primary state. What is forgotten is that the DNC also recommended a “bonus rule” for states who agreed to play by the rules. Again, the DNC:
Additionally, the Commission has proposed, for consideration by the Rules and Bylaws Committee, a bonus delegate incentive system that would encourage states parties to schedule their events later in the process.
After the 2006 decision, none of the “losers” objected to the decision, although they obviously wished they had been chosen. A year later Michigan would change its tune, essentially becoming a sore loser.
The first break in the rules came from–guess where–Florida–and not from the Democrats but from the Republicans. The Republican-controlled legislature and the state’s Republican governor passed a law in May 2007 to move Florida’s primary to early January. The vote had bipartisan approval.
At that point, according to the Washington Post:
Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Stacie Paxton said the state would lose 50 percent of its delegates and all its superdelegates- typically members of Congress. Any candidate who campaigns in Florida for a primary earlier than Feb. 5 will be ineligible for receiving any of the state’s delegates, Paxton said.
She added that the DNC hoped to work out a separate plan with the state party, such as a caucus, to avoid the penalties.
Sounds pretty clear, doesn’t it? Also, sounds like the DNC was willing to work out a deal with Florida. But here’s the clincher, according to the Post:
Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was already campaigning in the Miami area on Monday. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will also continue to campaign in Florida, said spokeswoman Jen Psaki.
Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani told a crowd during an Orlando luncheon on Friday that he, too, would continue to campaign here.
So, while the DNC was trying to work out a deal with Florida, both candidates were ignoring the DNC and the rule that had been set up.
In August 2006, the DNC pulled the trigger, stripping Florida of all its delegates, but giving it 30 days to work out a compromise. Here is the Post on that story:
The party punished Delaware in 1996 for similar rules violations.
Now comes clincher number two. Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns said they would wait to see what could be worked out in the 30 days; However, Florida remained defiant. Florida’s state party chair, Karen L. Thurman stated:
Whether you get a delegate or don’t get a delegate, a vote is a vote. “That is what Floridians are going to say is important.
The Florida Democrats blamed the whole mess on the Republicans:
Though the DNC’s action was well-telegraphed, it came after emotional pleas from state party leaders, who blamed the initial selection of the date on Republicans who control the legislature. Thurman said she and her staff spent “countless hours” trying to persuade the legislature to pick another date.
It should be noted that in August only one rules committee member–Florida’s Allan Katz–voted against imposing the sanctions. Among those members who voted FOR the sanctions were people such as Harold Ickes, who went into a tirade at the recent meeting. Also in August:
DNC Chairman Howard Dean sent a letter on August 31, 2007 to each of the Democratic candidates in which gave an overview of the Rules and Bylaws Committee’s August 25 meeting and the Florida situation and wrote, “I strongly urge you to do your part and support the actions of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.”
Meanwhile Michigan’s Republicans openly voiced the same idea as Florida. Remember that at that time one of the leading Michigan primary contenders was a Republican with Michigan ties–Mitt Romney. Now remember what has happened so far–here the DNC is trying to work out a compromise with Florida when all of a sudden Michigan essentially says to the DNC, “Screw you, we’re going to hold our own primary just like Florida.” The measure was supported by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat.
In December, 2007 the DNC gave Michigan the same penalty it gave Florida, stripping it of all its delegates. Only the Michigan DNC members opposed this. According to the Post:
All of the Democratic presidential candidates already promised the national party that they will not campaign in either Michigan or Florida, even though both states are particularly valuable prizes in the general election.
Here is a December 2007 column from Juan Cole that tells the story:
Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar. That leaves Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and “uncommitted,” as the choices on the Democratic ballot in Michigan. ‘
Well, the way I read it, that means Hillary takes Michigan.
So, there you have it. Last December, Hillary Clinton and four other candidates refused to abide by the DNC decision and take their names off the ballot. Cole was positively prescient in his analysis except for South Carolina:
And here’s a scenario for you: Obama wins in Iowa. Hillary wins in New Hampshire. Obama wins in Nevada. Hillary wins in South Carolina. But then Hillary wins in Michigan and Florida but they don’t count. Or do they count for public opinion even if not for the Convention? Do they help create an impression that she is winning the tennis match 6-4 going into the February primaries?
There is no need to follow this to the bitter end when the DNC cut the baby in half. The evidence is clear. The two states repeatedly defied the DNC even as the DNC tried to work out a compromise, especially with Florida. One of the remaining two candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton also chose to defy the DNC.
So what was this really about? First, as I noted on this blog almost two years ago, there has been a struggle in the Democratic Party between Howard Dean’s DNC and the Clinton wing of the Party. The alternative organization Dean formed after his unsuccessful bid for president, Democracy for America, was a direct slap at the Democratic Leadership Council. So the struggle yesterday was a struggle between two factions of the Party, a struggle the Clintons forced all along on Dean, trying to emasculate him.
Because of this mess it is pretty clear Dean has won the battle but lost the war. His tenure as DNC chair is over. That is really too bad because Dean brought a breath of fresh air to the DNC just as he did to the Presidential race.
Second, cutting the baby in half is about Presidential leadership. Note that Barack Obama agreed to abide by the decision. Clinton has not. If this is the type of leadership she promises to bring to America–a tradition of ignoring the rules and refusing to abide by agreements, then this country is in trouble.
Hypocrite of the week award goes to Harold Ickes and other Clinton supporters on the Committee who voted last year to strip the states of the delegates, then decided to force a compromise and now are crying “Foul!” because Clinton did not get what she wanted. Talk about values–these people have none. Here is part of Icke’s press release from Clinton headquarters:
The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
Yet frankly, Obama could have really cemented things by granting Clinton the 73 delegates that Michigan delegate Joel Ferguson proposed. Other Michigan Democratic leaders agreed on a 69-59 split for Clinton back in April. So essentially the Clinton camp is crying foul over FOUR delegates! And for this, the DNC tied up an entire Saturday afternoon.
In the spirit of Party unity Obama should agree to give Clinton her four delegates. If the election is so close he cannot agree to that, then it is time to turn it over to the convention. Such a gesture on Obama’s part could heal some wounds and maybe the story can still turn out more like the Solomon parable. It also would draw a sharp contrast between a magnanimous winner and a whining loser.
Finally the loser in this is the American people. Unless the Parties can work out something by 2012, we will see the equivalent of a national primary as other states who followed the rules will see Florida and Michigan received only a slap on the wrist. The American people are the loser because front-loading the primaries so we have the equivalent of a national primary favors the candidates who have the most money. The Presidency of our country is now up for sale!
So who deserves the baby?
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
