By any reasonable standard, the presidential nominating process is a bit of a mess, and badly in need of reform. But there is a calendar in place, there are rules, and everyone agreed to accept the system, as is, at least until after the election.
Which is why this statement from Hillary Clinton’s campaign raised more than a few eyebrows late yesterday.
“I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.
“I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.
“I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.
“I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.”
Ezra noted, “This is a very, very, very big deal,” adding, “This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart.” That may sound hyperbolic, but the Clinton campaign is clearly pushing the propriety envelope to a point that should make Dems uncomfortable.
Because this can get confusing, let’s consider a little context. The Democratic National Committee, hoping to maintain some semblance of control over the nominating calendar, mandated that Iowa would hold the first caucus, followed by New Hampshire with the first primary. Nevada would go third with its caucus, and South Carolina’s primary would round out the first four. The DNC said every other state could move its contest up to Feb. 5, but no sooner.
Michigan and Florida blew off the DNC’s mandate, and moved up their primaries. The DNC responded by punishing both states, stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates to the national convention. With no delegates, their presidential primaries effectively became meaningless.
Indeed, in Florida’s case, each of the candidates agreed to play by the DNC’s rules and vowed not to campaign in the state at all. In Michigan, the candidates agreed not to “participate” in the state’s primary, which led John Edwards and Barack Obama to remove their names from Michigan’s primary ballot. For reasons that have never been clear, Clinton promised not to participate in Michigan’s contest, but she refused to take her name off the ballot.
Now, one can certainly make the argument that the DNC was overly harsh in its punishment. And one can argue that the candidates were wrong to protect the integrity of the nominating calendar. But under the circumstances, these are tangents — the candidates did agree to play by these rules. All of them had plenty of opportunities to argue against these rules while they were being written, but each vowed to respect the process.
And now Clinton seems to be making an effort to change the rules in the middle of the game. Josh Marshall explains:
[Y]ou don’t change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another. This is no more than a replay, with different factual particulars, of the attempt to outlaw the at-large caucuses in Nevada after the Culinary Union endorsement made it appear they would help Barack Obama.
Perhaps there’s some detail of this question that I’m not aware of. And if there is I’ll revise my opinion accordingly. But based on what I know now this is pretty clear-cut.
Hillary can muscle for every advantage she wants. Good for her. She’s a fighter. But everyone else should see this for what it is and say No.
Obviously, Clinton easily won Michigan; she wasn’t running against anyone. She’s likely to cruise to victory in Florida, given that her rivals aren’t competing in the state. Basically, Clinton is pulling a stunt in the hopes of making these victories count, after she’d already agreed that they wouldn’t. (Worse, one of the reasons Clinton, Edwards, and Obama agreed to play by the rules was to curry favor in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now that Clinton no longer feels like she has to worry about impressing, she’s reversing course.)
One of the striking angles to this is how unnecessary it seems. If Clinton were confident that she’s in a position to win the necessary number of delegates, this move is entirely superfluous. Rather, this seems like an insurance ploy in the event of a brokered convention.
And why does this have the potential to “tear the party apart”? Because, as Ezra argued, if Clinton uses Michigan and Florida to capture the nomination, “the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn’t contest those states because they weren’t going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC’s procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. Clinton is changing the game here. It’s as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious.”
Stay tuned.